The Patrol Rifle Concept


PDA






Cosmoline
April 9, 2006, 02:56 AM
My recent experimentations with the CZ-527 have got me thinking about what might be termed the "Patrol Rifle" concept. It's certainly not a new idea. The Winchester '92 in .44-40 was used extensively by police and paramilitary forces in North America. Even the Guardia Civil in Spain used one. The Spanish police in particular seemed to love the idea, and later adopted the 9mm Largo "Destroyer Carbine." The modern versions can be seen in the CZ-527 and the Remington 7600.

These long arms tend to be classified as either carbines or rifles depending on whether they fire traditional rifle or traditional handgun amuntion. I think it might be useful to start thinking about them as their own class. Specifically, as a type of long arm of particular dimensions useful for home defense or police applications. Here's some general parameters:

Cartridge: Sufficiently powerful to kill a man with a single shot out to 100 meters, not so powerful as to slow down followup shots or throw too large a flash. .223, .357 Magnum, 7.62x39, .30-30, possibly .308 at most.

Weight: No greater than 6.5 lbs., preferably between 5 and 6 lbs.

Barrel: 16 1/2" to 20"

OAL: 35"-45"

Balance: Barrel-light

Sights: Iron or red dot

Action: Pump, bolt, lever, or semi. No selective fire.

Capacity: 5 to 15 preferable depending on cartridge type due to weight and balance considerations.

Application: Law enforcement, home defense, brush hunting, or any other conditions where a longer rifle can be an impediment.

If you enjoyed reading about "The Patrol Rifle Concept" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Nematocyst
April 9, 2006, 03:32 AM
I want this one (http://www.remingtonle.com/rifles/7600.htm).

Not my highest priority,
which is a Browning A-Bolt in 7mm08.

But, given that the Rem 7600P is a pump,
like my beloved 870P, yet available in both .308 & .223...
well, that just says to me, fine gun.

seeker_two
April 9, 2006, 08:35 AM
Excellent topic, Cosmoline... :cool:

I like the 7600/7615 concept, too. Too bad Remington charges $800+ each for them. :eek: (C'mon, guys. You can get a decent AR for that. Get competetive. For $800, you could do a matched pair of 7615 & 870...)

Why not a semi-auto? I'm not just talking about AR's & AK's, but some other good ones also exist. I think the lightweight Browning BAR's would be a good choice, and the Benelli R1's wouldn't be so bad (esp. if more calibers/barrel lengths were offered).

QUESTION: What should be the primary sighting system for a patrol rifle? (iron sights...1x red-dot/ACOG...scout scope...3x9 variable...)

And should the perfect patrol rifle have iron sights as a backup?

Let's get thinking, people... :D

355sigfan
April 9, 2006, 11:53 AM
The patrol rifle concept in the LE world today is a semi auto 223 carbine. The reason for their use was made obvious by the LA Bank Robery. Active shooters are also a huge reason to have 223 carbines. You need a gun with limited over penetration and with high capacity that is easy to shoot. I just don't see levers, bolts or pumps doing this job very well. Get yourself a good Semi auto carbine a M4 type gun preferably.
Pat

Teufelhunden
April 9, 2006, 12:45 PM
I'm saving up for a Krebs Custom KTR-03S (http://www.rifleshootermag.com/featured_rifles/avtomat_080304/). Though I qualified as an expert every time with the M16A2 while I was in the Marine Corps, I never really got to like it. Never had any jamming or breaking problems or any other of the perceived ills of the design, it just doesn't feel good to me. For some reason, I took a liking to the AK design. I've not yet decided whether I'll order the Krebs in 7.62 or 5.45--both seem to have their adherents, and the Soviets did switch to the 5.45 for a reason...

Aside from the action, this design meets all of your criteria.

-Teuf

Cosmoline
April 9, 2006, 01:31 PM
Why not a semi-auto

Actually, as long as they are not selective fire a semi would fit fine. Indeed it's better IMHO to view them as "Patrol Rifles" than some sort of quasi "Assault Weapon." As it stands now we reject the classification of the AWB but we don't really have a classification to replace it.

You need a gun with limited over penetration and with high capacity that is easy to shoot. I just don't see levers, bolts or pumps doing this job very well

Actually, overepenetration is a function of bullet design, not cartridge type. Also, high capacity is only needed if you're going to use the firearm for military-style suppressive fire or the sort of marsh-clearing they do in Iraq. For legal reasons these aren't really on the table for LEO's or civilians. You could have a patrol rifle with a high cap, but you wouldn't really need it. OTOH Hague would be totally inapplicable, so the best bullets could be chosen for the arm. Early expanding HP's would resolve any overpentration concerns and add enormously to the lethality of the round.

Foxtrot427
April 9, 2006, 02:20 PM
I bet youd do well with a M1 carbine

Cosmoline
April 9, 2006, 02:28 PM
The M-1 carbine is borderline, due to its weak and restricted cartridge.

chrisTx
April 9, 2006, 02:33 PM
patrol rifle meets the 'one up' requirement. police always have to 'one up' the bad guy. he acts aggressive, you pull a taser or spray. he hits you, you pull a baton. he pulls a knife, you pull a pistol. he pulls a pistol, you pull a rifle. he pulls a rifle, you just be the better shot.

rockstar.esq
April 9, 2006, 02:38 PM
Seems like Remington's got a little price confusion going with the 7615 line. Asking that much for an innacurate rifle that's been in and out of their catalog under different guises for at least the last twenty years seems a little silly. As I see it, the main "improvement" they made was two fold. In the .223 they modified the magazine well to accept most AR type mags. This I think was a great idea. Now why didn't they do this with the .308? I fail to see why the AR-10 mag or the FAL mag couldn't have been fitted to the rifle thus making it more marketable to the "tactical" market. The second improvement was the addition of Wilson ghost ring sights. Finally a new rifle from Remington with Ghost rings as an option! Of course the next step into the heart of Blackticle craziness would be to make the forend some form of rail network allowing the "operator" the opportunity to mount a flashlight, laser, grenade launcher, and lawyers desk to it! As for the concept of a pistol caliber rifle, I hate to say it but I believe those day's are done. Cosmoline pointed out the sound arguements for using rifle ammo with appropriate bullet designs. Carrying that a step farther, the rifle cartridge has the advantage of being "point of aim" for a much wider range of distances thus reducing the chance of a miss and the associated liability. This is why many trainers teach "...use a handgun to fight your way to your rife..."

.45Guy
April 9, 2006, 06:10 PM
I suppose my deer rifle would fit the concept. 6 rounds of 7.62x39, weighs in at roughly 5 pounds, and is 36" OAL. Fairly accurate to boot.
http://www.geocities.com/usmc_1371_3/patrol1.jpg

Cosmoline
April 9, 2006, 06:13 PM
Yes, that's just the sort of thing. It is odd how so many rifles from different nations and different construction tend to move towards the same form. Your garage M-C looks like a Destroyer which looks like a CZ 527 which handles like a spikehorn which looks like a a short barrel '92. Form is following function over and over again. I'm suggesting we start recognizing the breed as something distinct.

JShirley
April 9, 2006, 06:15 PM
So, I'm hearing you mean to say

Sufficiently powerful to stop a man with a single shot out to 100 meters ;)

Spec ops Grunt
April 9, 2006, 06:52 PM
Winchester 1300 :neener:

J/K A lever gun in 30 WCF would be perfect.

Cosmoline
April 9, 2006, 06:58 PM
:D Don't start that argument again.

lawson
April 9, 2006, 07:11 PM
my new Marlin 1894C would fit the bill nicely. 9 shots of .357 Magnum and a red dot scope on a quick-release mount. 18.5" barrel, 36" OAL.

kentucky_smith
April 9, 2006, 07:17 PM
Light, 7.62x39, 16" barrel, now with tech-sights. Works for me.

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/view/mb/file?username=surplusrifle&id=134415

Bruuin
April 9, 2006, 11:31 PM
What about the FN Patrol rifles?

http://www.fnhusa.com/contents/r_pbr_home.htm

Cosmoline
April 10, 2006, 12:08 AM
I'd actually classify the FN Patrol Rifle as a field sniper rifle. They use high powered optics and are accurized for precision shots. I also believe with a large scope they'd be too heavy.

Spec ops Grunt
April 10, 2006, 12:53 AM
A Springield 1903, Mauser 98, Mosin Nagant, Enfield, or M1 Garand would go good.

Clean97GTI
April 10, 2006, 02:34 AM
The FN Patrol Bolt Rifles are nice, but I say they are too expensive.
You get a very precise bolt rifle in .308 with a 4 round capacity and no iron sights. You now have to buy optics which adds to the price.
You could buy a similar weapon from Savage or CZ for less and probably get iron sights. In fact, The Remington 710 fits that role perfectly except for the iron sights. It comes with a scope from the factory. Inexpensive and accurate enough.

I think something like the SKS or Mini-14 is about ideal. M1 Carbine would be as well. Before someone calls it weak, please remember that it is more powerful than ANYTHING a cop will have on his/her belt.

I don't care much about capacity limits and what they mean. I can own a 30 round magazine and that about evens things up.

If I had officers to equip, and could design a rifle, I would use an SKS that takes AK magazines and mount the thing in a light, polymer stock. Load it with softpoints and drop it in the patrol car. Never have to worry about it (unlike a tacticool AR) and if it ever breaks, parts are dirt cheap and widely available.

Zundfolge
April 10, 2006, 02:45 AM
I read this thread and it looks like everyone is dancing around the obvious choice.
So I gotta ask, why NOT the AR-15?

Most departments already have them.

The manual of arms is simple and many cops already know it.

FilJos
April 10, 2006, 02:50 AM
patrol rifle meets the 'one up' requirement. police always have to 'one up' the bad guy. he acts aggressive, you pull a taser or spray. he hits you, you pull a baton. he pulls a knife, you pull a pistol. he pulls a pistol, you pull a rifle. he pulls a rifle, you just be the better shot.

Sort of like: "You wanna know how you do it? Here's how: They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue!"

mustanger98
April 10, 2006, 02:58 AM
I think something like the SKS or Mini-14 is about ideal. M1 Carbine would be as well. Before someone calls it weak, please remember that it is more powerful than ANYTHING a cop will have on his/her belt.

I agree. While I'm not a fan of the SKS, I do like Mini-14 and M1 Carbine. That's just me and my preferences. Who's calling the M1 Carbine weak? My Grandpa was a WW2 vet who drove trucks on the Red Ball Express and he had the Carbine and all the mags he could get in the truck with him. He always spoke highly of it and his issue 1911A1.

For a light handy levergun, I like Winchester's 94AE in .44mag or .45Colt (and I'll have a sixgun in the same caliber as my carbine). 9 +1 capacity and add an aperture rear... maybe a Williams Guide or some sort of ghost ring depending on who's preferring what. Those have 16" barrels, so they're not too forward heavy to begin with.

Have I ever mentioned how much I like my M1 Garand?:D

mustanger98
April 10, 2006, 03:09 AM
I read this thread and it looks like everyone is dancing around the obvious choice.
So I gotta ask, why NOT the AR-15?

Maybe because not all of us prefer it. Hang all the "tacticool" toys on it and you might as well be lugging the SAW around, but we ain't talking military or police, IIRC. As civilians we get to choose what we like and not what the gov't agencies choose to issue for political reasons. Some of us, like myself, like leverguns. Some guys can't seem to grasp why, but they probably never shot one in their lives thinking levers are too old fashioned. OTOH, a Winchester or Marlin rifle or carbine will work when a lot of other designs are choked or broke. And I said what I said in my last post about the M1 Carbine which used to be used by police too. I'm sure this is bound to spark an arguement about AR-15 vs. personal preference. But us private citizens... we carry and shoot what we like and what suits our needs. Anybody who don't like it that I often choose my lever action saddle carbine or deer rifle can get over it. Nobody tells me what guns to like. I don't tell others not to like AR's, but I do tell 'em why their arguements don't hold water as to why I should have one.

Clean97GTI
April 10, 2006, 03:28 AM
I agree. While I'm not a fan of the SKS, I do like Mini-14 and M1 Carbine. That's just me and my preferences. Who's calling the M1 Carbine weak? My Grandpa was a WW2 vet who drove trucks on the Red Ball Express and he had the Carbine and all the mags he could get in the truck with him. He always spoke highly of it and his issue 1911A1.

Cosmoline called it weak and restricted in post #8. I suppose its a bit down on power compared to a larger cartridge, but its certainly not weak compared to other pistol calibers. IMHO, the .30 Carbine is a big pistol round but performs admirably in the M1 Carbine.
I think the thing that attracts me to the Mini-14 or SKS or M1 Carbine is the light weight, power and capacity they offer in a very portable package. I would want to change a few things in the SKS before sending it into police service, but nothing too drastic. There is also a thread in the Reloading forum about the 7.62x39 and the thread starter is getting some nice numbers out of the old M43 round. He's a little beyond safe AK or SKS pressures, but he's also using big heavy bullets. Seems like he's going for near .308 performance.

I'll still stick with the SKS recomendation I made.
Cost and durability trump tactical coolness.

355sigfan
April 10, 2006, 05:11 AM
The M1 carbine is weak. It was preferred by troops who did not fight much and wanted a lighter weapon to carry. It was designed to replace the pistol. Kind of like the modern PDW concept. Its ballistics is about the same as a 357 mag revolver which is weak compared to an intermediate rifle cartridge.
Pat

Clean97GTI
April 10, 2006, 06:07 AM
The .30 Carbine packs a good bit more energy than a .357 magnum revolver.

Most factory loaded .30 Carbine is near 1000lbs muzzle energy while factory .357 is lucky to approach 600.

You could probably find hotter stuff from Buffalo Bore or DoubleTap.
Its not like the .30 Carbine would be hard to get more oomph from. You could call it a poor performer in combat, but remember that it was always a FMJ round with the military. Police are under no such limitation.

Load it a bit hotter and use a quality soft point bullet.

I'd still rather use something stronger though. No need to go with a marginal caliber when you can have better in a similar package.

Rob1035
April 10, 2006, 10:14 AM
This, and many other threads on THR have got me looking hard at a .38/.357 lever gun (marlin 94?) with XS ghost rings and rail, and a low magnification scope (Leup?) with quick detach rings....I could probably do the whole shebang for the price of an AR (arguably)

:cool:

Leif
April 10, 2006, 10:56 AM
How about this:

Marlin 1894, .44mag
S&W 629 Mountain Gun, .44mag

Or you could go with a Ruger Deerfield if you really must have a semiauto. Of course, your magazine capacity will be pretty limited then. Some enterprising fellow really needs to make a 10, or even 7, round magazine for these some day.

I think one issue people overlook is that with any rifle requiring detachable large-capacity magazines, you also need the appropriate load-bearing gear to carry those magazines. It's a lot easier to stuff pockets and pouches with single cartridges than with loaded magazines; makes you a lot lighter on your feet, too. Just a thought.

Also, to answer a question with a question, what sort of environment is at issue here? Urban? Rural? Or is this supposed to be a 'one size fits all' solution?

Mossyrock
April 10, 2006, 12:53 PM
My answer to this question was a Marlin 1894C in .357 magnum with XS Ghost Ring sights. Light, handy, compact, reasonably powerful and accurate. I bought mine used for a very good price due to a few dings and some rust freckling. It isn't real pretty, but it it very smooth with a good trigger. Is it an Elk rifle? Nope. But, if I need something with more reach than the Colt Officer's ACP .45 on my hip, I grab the Marlin. It is one of two rifles in my safe that are loaded at all times. The other is a Big Bore 94 Winchester in .375 Winchester. If I can't get it done with that hardware, I don't need a rifle or pistol...I need close air support. :evil:

thereisnospoon
April 10, 2006, 01:21 PM
...now its for sale in the Trading Post.

Pros: The rifle itself is really nice great finish, etc. The sights are awesome and the mags actually drop free, unlike the "civilian" 7400 model(s), which are a pain in the fingers to get out. I can hit IDPA argets out to 200 meters (actaully 186 meters to the targe, but you get the idea) easily with factory ammo.

Cons: A pistol grip would make it a little more handy and make it feel "just like" my 870 12ga., but alas, they won't fit...

I am selling because I recently decided to go to the .223 altogether and it no longer fits my battery. Here's a link:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=191205

(I know: SHAMELESS PLUG, isn't it :evil: :neener: )?!

Cosmoline
April 10, 2006, 02:37 PM
The .30 Carbine packs a good bit more energy than a .357 magnum revolver.

Yes, but it doesn't pack more than a .357 CARBINE which is what we're comparing it to here. The .30 Carbine relies on very small bullets in the 110 grain range. The .357 can exceed it in the light bullets and covers a range out to 200 grains that the .30 carbine cannot reach. I think it's borderline mostly because I'm not sure it would have the gravitas to do a one-shot kill at 100 meters unless you got a lucky hit in. The .30's record on deer is spotty at best in spite of many GI's trying their best with it.

However, the PLATFORM is awesome and would make an excellent patrol rifle if it could be beefed up a notch.

Cosmoline
April 10, 2006, 02:44 PM
read this thread and it looks like everyone is dancing around the obvious choice. So I gotta ask, why NOT the AR-15?

An AR carbine can be within the criteria if add-ons are kept to a minimum and the weight is kept down. The problem comes when it's fully loaded and tricked out, at which point it starts to weigh a lot more and become more of a battle weapon.

Clean97GTI
April 10, 2006, 03:52 PM
355sigfan specifically compared it to a 357 revolver.

The M1 Carbine that GI's used was still equipped with light bullets of the FMJ persuasion. This is probably the biggest problem with it in trying to be an effective cartridge. Load it hotter with a heavy soft point and it would be fine.

Regardless, I still don't see the love for these pistol caliber carbines. If you're going to carry the weight, carry a real cartridge. You can extoll the virtues of the .44mag, but it still pales in comparison to an actual rifle round.

For a one size fits all carbine, you're going to have trouble beating out something like an SKS or Mini-14. You could go with an AR-15, but I don't really see a reason to spend more. If you insist on a lever action, there is no reason not to go with 30-30 over a pistol round. For bolt action, you can have pretty much any caliber you want.
There is no real reason to use pistol pistol rounds in a rifle.

355sigfan
April 10, 2006, 03:58 PM
I made the mistake I thought the 30 carbine was comparable to the 357 mag from a handgun while its really comparable to it from a carbine. I appoligize for my error. Personally I still much prefer a rifle caliber shoulder arm. But I will admit the 30 carbine and 357 mag carbine are better than most pistol caliber carbines. Personally like I said earlier an AR carbine (or other suitable military style semi auto) is one of the best technically for this job. All other action types are a bit out of their element for this role and have several tactical weakness. Bolt guns have a slow rate of fire and low capacity. Lever guns have a desent rate of fire but have a low capacity (in rifle calibers calibers especially) and are slow to reload. Pump rifles are comparable to lever guns with a slightly better rate of fire. And frankly if I were forced by necessity to use a non semi auto I would still want some of the same add ons for it that I have on my ar. Such as a desent flashlight and a quality optic preferably an Eotech, but an Aimpoint would do. A low power variable scope like the Trijicon 1.25 -4 would also be a good choice.
Pat

Correia
April 10, 2006, 04:54 PM
Cosmo, problem is that you are stealing a term that is already in common use in some circles. Patrol rifle is a term that as far as I can tell has been around for about fifteen years, and usually refers to the rifle that a cop keeps in his PATROL car.

For civillian use it doesn't make any sense. I don't know about you guys, but I don't really "patrol" anything. :p

And in using that term, the standard "patrol rifle" out there is some form of AR15. As far as hanging stuff on it, who cares? If it gets the job done any better, good. Who cares if it weighs more than 6 pounds? Once again, it is riding in a car.

Cosmoline
April 10, 2006, 04:55 PM
You can extoll the virtues of the .44mag, but it still pales in comparison to an actual rifle round

Not out of a carbine! The .44 Magnum out of a carbine, particularly when loaded for the job with slower-burning powders, is equal or superior to a .30-30. The longer barrel gives an enormous power boost to the cartridge, as it does with the .357 Magnum.

Cosmoline
April 10, 2006, 04:59 PM
Cosmo, problem is that you are stealing a term that is already in common use in some circles. Patrol rifle is a term that as far as I can tell has been around for about fifteen years, and usually refers to the rifle that a cop keeps in his PATROL car.

I'm not wedded to the name. I'm mainly trying to define the concept a little more clearly. I thought of patrol rifle because the type of rifle I'm talking about has evolved primarily as a portable law enforcement long gun. But I agree the name "patrol rifle" has been used for a wide array of firearms including sniper rifles.

mustanger98
April 10, 2006, 05:03 PM
Much as ya'll want to look down your noses at the M1 Carbine and .30Carbine round, ya'll still wouldn't want to get shot with one.

As for deer hunting with it, Grandpa said he didn't understand why it wasn't legal since the US Army trained him to kill a man at 400yds with one. And that was with FMJ, but for deer hunting, we have SP's and HP's and stuff provided the weapon will feed them reliably.

As I've said, it comes down to personal preference.

I'm agreeing with Cosmoline about .44magnum. I shoot it and .30-30 both. .44's good inside 100yds with a slow heavy bullet. .30-30's good to 300yds if you know what you're doing with it and quite lethal well beyond that.

Remember, all it takes for a projectile from the size of a BB up to a semi-truck to be potentially lethal is 300fps.

355sigfan
April 10, 2006, 05:04 PM
Well the ar15 with all the gadgets you seem not to like owns the leo market.
Pat

mustanger98
April 10, 2006, 05:11 PM
Well the ar15 with all the gadgets you seem not to like owns the leo market.

Just because a certain market is flooded with Matty Mattel don't mean it's the best. Anything their mouseguns can do at 200yds, a .30-30 levergun, .308 crankbolt or M-14, or M1 Garand can do just as well or better. Just because some people sneer at .30Carbine don't make it less potentially lethally damaging if somebody gets hit with it.

Like somebody else said, us private citizens aren't patrolling anything. And like I said, we choose what we like.

Boats
April 10, 2006, 05:15 PM
Those AR-15s with all of the dookickeys on them rule the LEO market due to one overwhelming factor:

They are all purchased using other people's money. There is no way most folks carrying a shield would have access to one of those rifles if they had to pay for the weapon, oodles of accessories, and ammo, out of pocket.

A dozen .30-30 rifles from the trunks of the LAPD cruisers, in the hands of decent shots, would have ended the 44 minute North Hollywood shootout about a half hour early and become a classical example of aimed fire beating spray and pray.

Clean97GTI
April 10, 2006, 05:15 PM
Sorry Cosmoline, but you still don't get the same performance from a pistol cartridge. .30-30 is faster and carries more energy for longer. It also has a better sectional density and less drop at distance.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_rifle_cartridges.htm
While Chuck Hawks subscribes to some odd theories, his conclusions here are correct. I believe it was said best in the movie Full Metal Jacket.
"This is my rifle this is my gun."
"This ones for fighting, this ones for fun."

Do yourself a favor and carry a rifle cartridge in your rifle. The only benefit I see over rifle rounds in rifles is that you can swap ammo between your carbine and pistol...but I don't know of any cops that carry a .44 Magnum these days.

Leif
April 10, 2006, 05:19 PM
I'm not wedded to the name. I'm mainly trying to define the concept a little more clearly.

How about 'scout rifle'?

Oh wait, that's already taken ... :neener:

Seriously, how are the parameters specified within your original post really all that different from the much-vaunted scout rifle idea? Maybe a less powerful cartridge, but what else?

355sigfan
April 10, 2006, 05:25 PM
QUOTE

Just because a certain market is flooded with Matty Mattel don't mean it's the best. Anything their mouseguns can do at 200yds, a .30-30 levergun, .308 crankbolt or M-14, or M1 Garand can do just as well or better. Just because some people sneer at .30Carbine don't make it less potentially lethally damaging if somebody gets hit with it.
END QUOTE

The 30 30, 308 and 3006 that are used in the weapons you mention have too much over penetration. The 223 is safe to use inside and it penetrates less in homes than most pistol rounds. The 30 carbine is not in the same class as the 223 and the rifle calibers you mention. It simply lacks the energy to get enough of stretch cavity to rip and tear tissue. It wounds like a pistol caliber with permante crush cavity only.

Now for Boats I disagree. I know several officers including myself who purchased our own ar15's for work. Heck I use my own rifle instead of the department issue DPMS m4 because I prefer Colt and I have the items on my rifle I want. Also most patrol officers have to purchase their own optics, lights slings ect. The 223 is the best cartridge going for police work due to its great short range stopping power with softpoints and its limited penetration with the same ammo.

Another factor to consider is patrol rifles are needed inside 25 yards far more than they are needed at 200 yards. So the advantages the 30 caliber rounds have at that range is a moot point. The over penetration of the larger calibers is a very serious concern for leo users.
Pat

Clean97GTI
April 10, 2006, 05:45 PM
Sigfan, how often have you carried your AR15 into home? Wouldn't you be better suited by a handgun or shotgun?

My feeling is that the AR platform gained so much favor with police because it was a military arm. The guys who carried it, liked its light weight and decent wounding capability when they used it in combat.

That combined with its cool looks and said vets moving into positions of power ensured adoption of the AR platform.

That being said, I don't know if I like my police to be armed with "military-style assault weapons." :neener:

Cosmoline
April 10, 2006, 05:55 PM
Sorry Cosmoline, but you still don't get the same performance from a pistol cartridge. .30-30 is faster and carries more energy for longer. It also has a better sectional density and less drop at distance.


Better after 100 meters, yes. But inside that range the .44 Magnum out of a carbine meets or exceeds the energy of a .30-30. You can check it on a forum search here, and it's been documented in tests across the gun rags.

http://www.sixguns.com/range/Mlntrpr.htm

Shooting Jacketed bulleted loads in the .44 Magnum resulted in average size groups of one to two inches with Federal's 240 grain JHP, Remington's 240 JHP, Cor-Bon's 260 Bonded Core, and Speer's 270 Gold Dot all coming in right at one inch for three shots. The two former loads, at 1670 and 1730 fps respectively are for broadside shots on deer-sized game. The latter two loads at 1840 and 1515 fps respectively are for situations demanding deeper penetration. Cor-Bon's 260 is one tough bullet designed for deep penetration on big tough game.

The CorBon 260 is building up a head of steam at nearly 2,000 ft. lbs. with a bullet of fine sectional density. This can easily be equalled or exceeded with handloads if slower powders are used. Such loads are not easy to find commercially because they're not intended to be shot out of a handgun. But Hornady custom has put some out and if you have the load book it's an easy enough matter to cook them up.

Hawks failed to consider these loads in his analysis. But his point was addressing the use of such firearms for HUNTING ONLY. In that application, esp. outside of the woods, the .30-30 or .35 Rem leverguns do offer some advantage over the .44 Magnum. But that begs the question of why one would be chosing the .30-30 for open range hunting with shots in excess of 100 yards in the first place. And it does nothing to address the use of such firearms for "social" situations which will be taking place inside of 50 yards.

I have no problem with the shorter .30/30's as part of this overall concept. I like them. But the fact is for close range shots they can be equalled or beaten by the .44 Magnum or even the .357 out of a levergun. The handgun cartridges offer reduced recoil and far less muzzle flash, as well. Compare the ballistics and performance of a a Marlin 1894 in .44 Mag with those of a Marlin "Spikehorn" with the same length barrel. The Spikehorn will throw a considerable flash and see a reduction in fps on its load. The 1894S will not.

And this isn't even getting into the realm of super-heavy handgun cartridges such as the .454 Casull or .460 S&W. These pick up even more steam out of a long gun and are far more tame off a shoulder-fired platform. To dismiss them because of the outdated conventional wisdom that handgun cartridges out of a long gun are bad ideas is really missing the boat.

JShirley
April 10, 2006, 06:07 PM
The 30 30, 308 and 3006 that are used in the weapons you mention have too much over penetration

Pat, that's not really true. The problem is with the bullets used. If a lightweight, fragile bullet is used in a .30 high power rifle, no overpen problems will be encountered.

Clean,

No, the AR-15 is superior for law enforcement potential antipersonnel use than the shotgun, for numerous reasons. The only reason Pat would have been better served entering a house with his 870, would be if there was a bear inside.

I'm fine with LEO having the best equipment available. I just want the same: LEO are, after all, civilians too.

John

Cosmoline
April 10, 2006, 06:16 PM
Seriously, how are the parameters specified within your original post really all that different from the much-vaunted scout rifle idea? Maybe a less powerful cartridge, but what else?

Call my idea the "Scout Rifle Jr." if you want :D The big differences are:

--No magnification at all
--More emphasis on iron sights
--.308 is the maximum possible cartridge, not the preferred one.
--The weight is a pound or more less
--The OAL is shorter
--The barrel length is shorter
--There's more emphasis on alternative action types than Col Cooper's concept allows
--More emphasis on fast target acquisition and minimal recoil for fast followup shots
--Inclusion of handgun cartridge carbines

Cooper's scout rifle concept is fundamentally military, even if the military forces of the world haven't been too quick to embrace it. My concept is fundamentally NOT military in focus. It's a category that has found favor with LEO's, ranchers, meat bag hunters, and others over the last century. It's just a category of firearm that hasn't been classified on its own at this point.

ChristopherG
April 10, 2006, 06:24 PM
Nuances of power and penetration aside, I very much think of my 1894c in this role. Light, handy, fast enough to run with the AR15s at local matches for the first 10 rounds, shoots flat enough out to 150 yards with the right load, with plenty of potency for the stated problem--a man-sized target. Lyman aperature sight with a 'hunting' aperature. It really is a fast handling, fast shooting setup (plus, I get to shoot cowboy action with it once a month).

Only deficiency in my view is it ain't mag-fed. With a rimmed revolver cartridge, I understand WHY it ain't mag-fed, but I still kinda wish it were. To me, at least a 10-round mag should be a requirement of an IDEAL 'patrol rifle', or whatever we decide to call it. Maybe a 'citizen's rifle'?

Oh, and why not an AR15? I just don't like semi-autos. That 7600 would be tempting with another couple inches of barrel and M14 mags, but there's the price issue still.

How about 'emergency rifle'? I actually think that's pretty close to what most of us are talking about.

Correia
April 10, 2006, 06:37 PM
Sorry Boats, I sell a whole lot of rifles to cops, and only a couple of my local departments actually buy and issue the rifles. The majority are bought by the cops on their own dime.

Sorry guys, but even for those of you who don't like semi-auto military style rifles (especially the AR) they own this market for really good reasons.

For whoever said that you could keep up with your local AR shooters for the first ten shots, your local shooters must suck. :D No offense intended, but AR style rifles own 3gun and IPSC type rifle competitions for a reason also. Under 25 yards I can do 4-5 aimed shots a second, and I'm not really that good.

All of that "tacticool crap" that some of you like to harp on, actually works really well. You should try it some time. I've posted about pretty much every accesory you can hang on a black rifle, and they all have a mission specific use.

Clean97GTI
April 10, 2006, 07:05 PM
Cosmoline, you're talking about really hot, heavy loads. This probably isn't something a police officer would be likely to use.
You even said yourself that these loads only meet and possibly exceed the .30-30 inside 100 meters. You aren't really gaining much that a full rifle round can't do.
For "social" work, you still have better options. The 5.56 is great at closer range assuming you're not trying to shoot through too much. At closer range, the officer may very well choose his/her sidearm and .40 or .45 has certainly shown itself to be a strong performer. A .40 caliber hole is still a .40 caliber hole no matter what makes it.

I'm not discounting that a .44 magnum is better from a long gun. I'm simply saying that rifle cartridges are better from long guns and the numbers and history are there to back that up.


JShirley, officers enter homes for all sorts of reasons and the weapon should be tailored to that purpose. As far as a 12ga being too powerful...well, I guess that depends on what you're hoping to do. The 12ga has been stopping people in their tracks for a long time. Its hard to argue with 8 or 9 .30cal pellets. I think saying the AR is superior to the 12ga for antipersonnel is highly dependent on what you are using it for. You want long shots, the AR is the weapon you want. For anything closer, you're gonna have a hard time beating the performance of a good load of buckshot.

My military-style assault rifle comment was simply a jibe at some police departments who arm themselves with such weapons and then speak out against citizens having them.

Cosmoline
April 10, 2006, 07:11 PM
Cosmoline, you're talking about really hot, heavy loads. This probably isn't something a police officer would be likely to use.
You even said yourself that these loads only meet and possibly exceed the .30-30 inside 100 meters. You aren't really gaining much that a full rifle round can't do.

What you gain over a rifle cartridge is less muzzle flash and less recoil. Plus increased capacity. That said, I'd take either a spikehorn or an 1894 for these purposes. The pistol cartridge carbines and 20" or less .30-30's both have over a century of history in the sort of truck gun/deputy's trunk/meat gun I'm talking about. I love them both. I just think folks make a mistake by dismissing the concept of firing handgun cartridges through a carbine. There is *LITERALLY* much to be gained.

As far as AR's, I believe some of their popularity may also lie in price reductions and the pressures of SWAT teams to be tacticool. But while I don't see anything per se wrong with them, they're not really doing anything in practice that a Winchester .30/30 or a CZ 527 couldn't be doing just as well.

That brings up what may be another aspect of this class of rifles--ECONOMICS. The rifle should above all be AFFORDABLE. $1,000 wizbangs need not apply.

Correia
April 10, 2006, 07:25 PM
Cosmo, there are a whole lot of things that any of the Evil Black Rifles have over a lever gun, and I like lever guns.

1. Shoot lots faster.
2. Hold lots more bullets.
3. Load lots faster.
4. Easier to maintain. (Strip a Winchester 94, then strip an AK and let's compare) :p

Even on economy, if you go from an AR to an SKS, AK, or KelTec, you're coming in at the same price point as a Marlin.

I totally disagree that you can do any of the same things with a bolt gun that you can with an EBR. Take a bolt gun to a 3gun match and try to clear a house with it. :)

Sorry man, the term is taken, and no matter how you spin it to fit your personal choice, it isn't going to work. That would be like me saying we need a new class of automobile, called the Sport Utility Vehicle, and declaring that they need to be 2wd, 2 door, hatch backs, with good gas milage. :)

JShirley
April 10, 2006, 07:37 PM
Clean, I never suggested the 12ga is too powerful. It is not.

The AR-15/M16/M4 IS superior for use on antipersonnel, regardless of practically any way you want to use it. About the sole exception might be something like shooting engine blocks, or through some other barrier, and then, you DO NOT want buckshot.

It's actually QUITE easy to argue with 8 or 9 .30 caliber pellets. IF you're using a shotgun, a .70 caliber rifle is much more effective than shooting your target 8 or 9 times with a .32 ACP, which is what you're effectively doing.
Buckshot performance? Please. I've seen things shot with buckshot. I've shot things with buckshot.

I no longer use buckshot for anything serious, just pests like armadillos at close range. Ask Larry Correia about the utility of buckshot...he's fired thousands of rounds of 12ga.

Yeah, I don't especially want to be shot with anything, but having grown up with a shotgun in my hands, and having fired thousands of rounds through the M4 carbine, I can say with great certainty I would prefer the M4 and civilian clones to any shotgun for antipersonnel use. I would further prefer, if I was a LEO adminstrator, that any officers under my command be equipped with one instead of a shotgun, because the shotgun is a liability(at least, with buckshot). A shotgun can be inexpensive, and a shotgun can be loaded with a variety of rounds, and so, if you have a limited budget and are in an area with large dangerous animals, the shotgun is the obvious choice of the two.

If you are not, a carbine-length AR15 or M4 is the OBVIOUS choice.

John

odysseus
April 10, 2006, 07:47 PM
For whoever said that you could keep up with your local AR shooters for the first ten shots, your local shooters must suck. No offense intended, but AR style rifles own 3gun and IPSC type rifle competitions for a reason also. Under 25 yards I can do 4-5 aimed shots a second, and I'm not really that good.

That reminds me of the frist time I shot an AR styled rifle as a teenager. Even to 100 yards, I could keep drilling rounds in the inner circle on irons with awesome control emptying a 30 round mag, and at 100 yards the .223 trajectory is pretty flat.

I know a lot of people talk down easily about the AR, and some of it might be valid (over accessorizing). I have a lot of other rifles I love and outside of a scout m-14 I might reach for, my AR is what I would for the topic this thread is about, especially because of how light it is.

Clean97GTI
April 10, 2006, 08:07 PM
I think you'll find the pellets coming from 00 Buck to be moving considerably quicker than .32acp velocity. Thats gonna pack a wallop when it hits.
http://www.steyrscout.org/terminal2.htm

This shows the pattern for #4 buck, but underneath states that #1, 00 and 000 buck are much better penetrators and would provide 8 or 9 .33cal holes all at once and in a small area. That is a devastating wound. There is a reason police still carry shotguns to this day. They work and they work well. I'm still not quite sure where you are going with this. Early on in your post, you mention shooting engine blocks and then seem to question the performance of buckshot. You then advise buckshot again for large dangerous game. Which one is it man? Is buckshot good against a good size predator (like a man) or isn't it? Make up your mind.

No doubts that the 5.56 is a good round, but it all comes down to what you want it for. I'd just as soon carry a shotgun against a person at close range as I would an M4. I like my odds with either weapon.

Then again, I've already put my choice forward.


and finally, getting back to the handgun caliber carbines. You do have a lot to gain over the same handgun round in a handgun. When you compare it to a rifle caliber, things don't look as good. I'd also have a hard time believing that a larger bullet, carrying nearly the same velocity and energy (from a smaller case) is going to recoil any less.
We all understand that handgun calibers can be improved with longer barrels...but its important to understand that the improvement should be measured against the same round in a handgun. When you compare them to rifles, its a wash. And then, you look at warming up that rifle cartridge and leave the cute little pistol round in the dust.

I think SWAT teams need faster firing weapons for some of their duties. We aren't discussing that. We are talking about a patrol rifle for the average cop in a car. It should be light weight, chambered in an effective intermediate cartridge and have a reasonable capacity. A semi-auto is nice and I feel that its almost mandatory. Not having to totally reaquire your sight picture can be a big help should you need to fire again.

Cosmoline
April 10, 2006, 08:30 PM
I totally disagree that you can do any of the same things with a bolt gun that you can with an EBR. Take a bolt gun to a 3gun match and try to clear a house with it

With the right bolt action like a 527, NO PROBLEM. Just yesterday I was pelting some AR boys with brass from mine. How often do you get complaints about rapid flying brass over a bolt action?

355sigfan
April 10, 2006, 10:19 PM
QUOTE
Sigfan, how often have you carried your AR15 into home? Wouldn't you be better suited by a handgun or shotgun?

My feeling is that the AR platform gained so much favor with police because it was a military arm. The guys who carried it, liked its light weight and decent wounding capability when they used it in combat.

That combined with its cool looks and said vets moving into positions of power ensured adoption of the AR platform.
END QUOTE

Actually I have used my Colt 6920 on all my entries since 2000. Its manuverable enough in a home and its far superior to the handgun for stopping power. It is less likely to overpenetrate when compared to handgun rounds. The only negative is the muzzle blast and I usually use a set of peltor electronic muffs when doing entries.

The reason the Ar15 is so well suited to leo use is active shooters. My first department Bethel PD had the first school shooter in the country. The officer responding used an issue 870 and missed with both his rounds before the shooter gave up. An ar15 or simular semi auto carbine in 223 is an ideal weapon for responding to an active shooter. If you have a large crowd and one shooter in the middle you do not want to use buck shot. The 223 has limited penetration is easy to hit with. In my opinion its the ideal tool for the job.

JShirley is right about the larger calibers if you use tap you can control their over penetration concerns. At least that is what I have read. I have not tested 308 tap rounds for penetration in various building materials.

As for the pistol its an oh crap gun. You only use a pistol in a gun fight because you have too and a long gun is not with in reach. If you have any warning at all get a longgun. I prefer rifles but a shotgun is still much better than a pistol.
Pat

355sigfan
April 10, 2006, 10:22 PM
QUOTE
With the right bolt action like a 527, NO PROBLEM. Just yesterday I was pelting some AR boys with brass from mine. How often do you get complaints about rapid flying brass over a bolt action?
__________________
END QUOTE

If you feel their equal try this drill from our sert qualificaiton. A5 5 yards with the rifle at low ready fire 2 rounds to the chest of an ISPC target and put one in the head in 1.5 seconds. Thats tough with a semi auto in 223. It aint going to happen with a Bolt gun.

Pat

JShirley
April 10, 2006, 10:28 PM
There is a reason police still carry shotguns to this day.

Yeah. They're cheap. They can also rationalize that it's easier to hit target because of shot spread, (it would be even easier to just use something with less recoil and better sights) and can further rationalize that shot is safer to use because it loses energy so rapidly (it's also true that shot spread is a liability).

You then advise buckshot again for large dangerous game

Where? Point that out.

I do NOT advise buckshot against anything large. I mention shotguns in connection with large dangerous game BECAUSE OF SLUGS. (Isn't that bloody obvious? I just decried buckshot for anything large. Sheesh.)

355sigfan
April 10, 2006, 10:29 PM
QUOTE
No doubts that the 5.56 is a good round, but it all comes down to what you want it for. I'd just as soon carry a shotgun against a person at close range as I would an M4. I like my odds with either weapon.
END QUOTE

Sorry have not got the quote function mastered yet. Its a personal choice issue. I prefer the M4. The shotgun is effective at stopping people but so is the 5.56. The shotgun works well from 0 to 25 yards with buck and out to 50 yards or more with slugs. But the carbine works well form point blank range to 300 plus rounds depending on the shooter. The carbine is easier for most to shoot well. The shotgun is actually one of the harder guns for officers to master. Very seldom to I have an officer fail a rifle qualification. But a lot of officers have problems passing the buckshot and slug qualifications. Shotguns have their place. I still have a Vangcomped 870 with MMC sights, surefire forend, side saddle and a tac sling in my patrol rig. Its loaded with Breneke slugs. I have it for use against Bears and Moose. I also have it for vehicle stops. The Breneke slugs perform better against vehicles and windshield glass vs the 223. Other than that I use my Colt.

I don't like pistol caliber carbines but I will conceed their better than no long gun at all. They do allow officers to place rounds far more accurately than officers armed with pistols.
Pat

JNewell
April 10, 2006, 10:32 PM
Anything their mouseguns can do at 200yds, a .30-30 levergun, .308 crankbolt or M-14, or M1 Garand can do just as well or better.

No anything. Load up with 1k of ammo and sprint that 200 yards with your rifle, ammo and the rest of your "patrol load."

One thing .30 rifles excel at is shooting through cover - but I'm not sure that's an essential element of the original mission.

On AR-15s and doo-dads: skip the doodads and go with either a bone-stock A1 configuration or if overall length is an issue a 16" A1-profile barrel. This configuration is light, maneuverable, accurate, and for most real life purposes has bettter sights than the A2. I like red dots just as much as the rest of you, but the A1 (with an A2 post) is very, very good and adds nothing to carry or break, if weight must be kept down.

Two other rifles do come to mind, though I think they're well behind an AR in A1 trim: a Win 92/clone in .44 Mag (about 5.5#) and an M1 carbine (don't remember the weight - 5# even maybe?). The M1 carbine is so light you can hold it at arms length and fire it singlehanded, as if it were a handgun.

355sigfan
April 10, 2006, 10:45 PM
Not that he needs my support because it is a credible knowledgeable man but Jshirley is right on the money about buck shot being comparable to shooting somone with a 32 auto 9 times. At close range buck is more effective because its clumped together and acts like a slug. But once the patern spreads the effectiveness of buckshot drops off dramatically.
Pat

355sigfan
April 10, 2006, 10:50 PM
QUOTE
On AR-15s and doo-dads: skip the doodads and go with either a bone-stock A1 configuration or if overall length is an issue a 16" A1-profile barrel. This configuration is light, maneuverable, accurate, and for most real life purposes has bettter sights than the A2. I like red dots just as much as the rest of you, but the A1 (with an A2 post) is very, very good and adds nothing to carry or break, if weight must be kept down.
END QUOTE

Actually You really need a light for target identification at least if your talking a home defense type rifle. And Irons are ok but their slower than a good dot and their a lot less usable as the sun goes down. Irons are for back up only in my opinion. You don't need all the do dads but you do need a good light a good sling and a quality low power optic.
Pat

drinks
April 10, 2006, 11:13 PM
Any you youngsters ever heard of the Win . 1910 ,.401 SL carbine?
Was a favored police and especially sherrif's car weapon from the 1910's up until the ammo dried up in the '70's.
Short, light, moderate recoil, good handling, easy to clean and WOULD put a man down at 100m.

Eleven Mike
April 11, 2006, 02:08 AM
Though I qualified as an expert every time with the M16A2 while I was in the Marine Corps, I never really got to like it. Never had any jamming or breaking problems or any other of the perceived ills of the design, it just doesn't feel good to me. For some reason, I took a liking to the AK design. That's probably because you're a real man. That's rare among Marines, but it does happen. :neener: When you want to be a real, big man, you'll get a .308 or some other real rifle caliber.

Unless you're a woman. Don't know.

Rifle bigotry and interservice rivalry brought to you by Eleven Mike.

Coronach
April 11, 2006, 02:30 AM
Company! Don Nomex!

:neener:

355sigfan
April 11, 2006, 03:58 AM
I have a lot of respect for Marines. They have been some of the best shooters I have taught once they become leo's. I have seen a lot of Army experts that could not hit a barn from the inside.
Pat

ghost squire
April 11, 2006, 04:59 AM
Cosmoline, I love the idea! However I would broaden it to include military purposes as well.

Your specs state 1 shot stop at 100 meters, I believe that may be a tad demanding for its purpose, as I envision this niche to be used at night, for ambushes, home defense, hit and run raids etc. Sorry if that sounds a bit commandoish, as I said I'm thinking this could be a SHTF/military type weapon.

However, going strictly by your specs I'm going to have to say that the AR-15, AR-180/AR-18, and Mini-14 fill that PERFECTLY. Ideally I would have an AR-180.

Loosening them up a bit, as I said realistically its going to be used at much shorter ranges 99 percent of the time, and also dispensing with the non select fire requirement, I would go with PPSH or Suomi, which are heavy but short and handy. For a more compact and silent option, any one of the suppressed MACs, or a suppressed mini-uzi.

More in the theme of what you are thinking of, but disobeying your specs, would be a short barreled FAL or M1A type weapon, with a 16-18 inch barrel. With a vortex muzzle break it would be loud, but the muzzle flash should be pretty minimal.

Also, if you want first round stop capability at 100 yards, this can be achieved with any caliber gun by using a rifle grenade :)

LAK
April 11, 2006, 07:11 AM
I think CZ-527 in 7.62x39 with 2X or 3X scope might be pretty close to ideal. Perhaps chambered for a 7.62x39mm-based cartridge like the 6mm PPC would be even better.

Come to think of it, a Scout clone employing the little CZ actionwould be perfect IMO.

CZ have an opportunity here; an affordable little "Scout-type" rifle that could have it all - except Col. Cooper's recommendation of cartridge. But the 7.62x39 is ample for any human target, and the 6mm PPC loaded with the better heavier bullets would be no less effective.

-----------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Cosmoline
April 11, 2006, 08:58 AM
I don't know about the scope. The CZ is such a compact rifle, any scope is going to be in the way. I also wonder why anyone would need a scope. The irons are first rate.

Zach S
April 11, 2006, 10:15 AM
I'd prefer an AR15. Other than my thompson, that's the longarm I have the most triggertime with.

M4 or Government profile 16" barrel, Surefire 9P mounted to the FSB, flat top with an optic (Aimpoint or EOtech), A1 BUIS with a same-plane aperture, collapsable stock, and a SOG armory buttpad. Pretty much what I have now, with the exception of the optic (I have an A1 carry handle w/ no optics), and it would be chambered for 5.56 instead of 9mm...

Since one of you are gonna ask anyway, the range I shoot at is pistol-caliber only, so I built an AR in 9mm since I could only afford one. I meant to build up a 5.56 soon after, but that hasnt happened yet. Considering the price of the PMC frangible ammo, my 9mm has paid for itself, or came close.

Correia
April 11, 2006, 01:26 PM
John, I still load buckshot. For some guns, for use inside my house only. :) S&B 12 pellet patterns really well out of my 12k and my 870.

Mostly because at twenty feet, (which is about my longest shot) the pattern is only about three-four inches across. I'm not aware of many people shot in the torso with 00 at conversational distance who didn't immediatly stop doing whatever it was they were doing to cause them to get shot. Plus I can do 2 to the body, 1 to the head with my Saiga in .7 seconds. :p

Outside of that, buckshot loses too much energy and doesn't penetrate enough. A shotgun is really a 25 yard weapon against humans. We've got way to many guys on this board who've shot thicker skinned game with buck (pigs) and have gotten negligable penetration. That is what slugs are for.

Outside of inside my house, I'm going to take an autoloading carbine in .223, 7.62x39, or .308 depending on my mood and if I want to coordinate my gun with my clothing. It is a fashion war, gentlemen. :) I'm about the biggest shotgun fanatic that I know, and I still would prefer to use a carbine if I needed to fight.

Cosmo, I'm telling you man, I can give you about 1,000 different 3gun stages, LE rifle quals, or basic rifle training drills, and you would be real hard pressed to find 1 that a carbine, iron-sighted, bolt gun would win over an auto in a capable shooters hands.

Cosmoline
April 11, 2006, 08:41 PM
I'm not excluding semis. I'm not sure where you got that idea. My point was simply that excluding bolts, levers and pumps is a stupid idea. They're far faster than most shooters give them credit for. My aimed rate of fire with the CZ, off hand or bench, is at least equal to my aimed rate of fire with an SKS or AK clone.

355sigfan
April 11, 2006, 09:15 PM
I have a hard time believing your rate of fire is the same with a bolt. Your either inept with a semi auto or your Lee Harvy Oswald with a bolt gun. Bolts can not be shot as fast as semi's with the same accuracy . The closer the range is the more apparant this becomes. I could send you a copy of our patrol rifle course and see if you can make the times. That would be a good test for you.
Pat

Cosmoline
April 11, 2006, 10:42 PM
AIMED rate of fire. Any fool can cap off rounds with a semi UNaimed. Have you ever seen anyone take your course with a mini-mauser or compact levergun? If not, how can you be so certain?

And it's "you're either inept" not "your either inept."

You guys have a patrol rifle course in Bethel? I didn't think you even had a rifle range there. I will concede that on average the semi has some advantage in rate of fire and certainly in capacity, but for the purposes I'm talking about these are academic. Lots of folks don't seem to have a clue just how fast a compact bolt action, levergun or pump can operate. It's part of the "tacticool" prejudice that's spread like a disease these past thirty years.

355sigfan
April 12, 2006, 12:11 AM
QUOTE
AIMED rate of fire. Any fool can cap off rounds with a semi UNaimed. Have you ever seen anyone take your course with a mini-mauser or compact levergun? If not, how can you be so certain?

And it's "you're either inept" not "your either inept."

You guys have a patrol rifle course in Bethel? I didn't think you even had a rifle range there. I will concede that on average the semi has some advantage in rate of fire and certainly in capacity, but for the purposes I'm talking about these are academic. Lots of folks don't seem to have a clue just how fast a compact bolt action, levergun or pump can operate. It's part of the "tacticool" prejudice that's spread like a disease these past thirty years.
END QUOTE

I was talking about aimed fire as well. Here is an easy drill for you. From a low ready at 7 yards fire 2 rounds in 2 seconds at a ISPC Brussels target. For more of a challenge on the SERT course fire 2 rounds in 1.5 seconds. Or for more range. Go from standing to prone and fire 2 rounds in 8 seconds from 100 yards. For SERT standard complete it in 6 seconds. That is not going to happen with a bolt gun. There is a separate bolt action rifle qualification simply because it can't keep up with a semi auto. Lever's and pumps are much faster and come much closer to rivaling a semi auto for fast accurate AIMED FIRE.

As for Bethel not to pat my own back but I got the patrol rifle program started there. We did have a police only range that you can just barely eek 100 yards out of. Bethel was the home of the first school shooting active shooter situation well before Columbine. Active shooter situations are on the rise. Workplace violence has been steadily going up despite an overall trend towards lower crime. People are getting mad and taking guns to work and killing people. Semi auto patrol rifles best handle this threat.

By the way I no longer work in Bethel I moved on to a PD on the road system.

AR15's are not popular because of a tacticool image. They just happen to be the best tool for the job.
Pat

ghost squire
April 12, 2006, 12:36 AM
Maybe you should practice more with a semi to get the most out of it Cosmoline... The time you spend cycling the bolt you could be spending aiming and pulling the trigger.

I must agree with 355sigfan both on that issue and the fact that a semi-auto 5.56 and in particular the AR-15 (because its so widely used) fit the bill very well.

355sigfan
April 12, 2006, 12:38 AM
Heck I will just post the whole patrol rifle course. Try it for fun and see how your bolt does. You will need a rifle with a sling 50 rounds of ammo a shot timer and a ISPC brussels target. This is the Alaska State Trooper and Anchorage PD standard patrol rifle course.

Stage 1. 100 yards. 8 seconds

From the guard (low ready magazine loaded chamber loaded safety on with muzzle at a 45 degree angle and weapon mounted) drop to prone and fire 2 rounds to the chest in 8 seconds. Repeat this stage twice. (for a total of 3 times)

Stage 2. 50 yards. 6 seconds

From the guard position drop to prone and fire 2 rounds to the chest in 6 seconds. repeat twice (for a total of 3 times)

Stage 3. 25 yards. 18 seconds

From a guard position fire two rounds to the chest standing, speed load, drop to kneeling and fire 2 more rounds in 18 seconds. repeat once (for a total of two times)

Stage 4. 15 yards. 5 seconds

From a slung position (weapon out of hands slung either in a team sling or african or american carry) fire 2 rounds to the chest standing in 5 seconds. repeat twice ( for a total of 3 times)

Stage 5. 15 yards. 3.5 seconds

From the guard position drop to kneeling and fire 2 rounds to the chest in 3.5 seconds. Repeat twice (for a total of 3 times)

Stage 6. 7 yards 2 seconds.

From the guard position fire two rounds to the chest in 2 seconds. Repeat twice. (for a total of three times)

Stage 7. 5 yards 3.5 seconds.

From the guard postion fire two rounds to the chest and one round to the head in 3.5 seconds. Repeat once (for a total of two times)

Stage 8. 3 yards. 1.5 seconds.

From the guard postion fire two rounds to the chest in 1.5 seconds. Repeat twice (for a total of 3 times)

Scoring

A zone hits are worth 5 points
B zone hits on all stages except 7 are worth 4 points. (Stage 7 is the fail to stop if you miss the A zone of the head and hit the b zone you get 1 point)
B zone hits on Stage 7 1 point.
C zone hits are worth 4 points.
D zone hits are worth 1 point.

All overtime shots are -5 points from the end score.

Max score possible is 250.
Passing is 200. (80%)

The SERT Urban Rifle qual is as follows.

Stage 1. 100 yards. 6 seconds (Prone)

From the guard (low ready magazine loaded chamber loaded safety on with muzzle at a 45 degree angle and weapon mounted) drop to prone and fire 2 rounds to the chest in 6 seconds. Repeat this stage once. (for a total of 2 times)

Stage 2. 50 yards. 6 seconds (any position)

From the guard position fire 2 rounds to the chest in 6 seconds. repeat twice (for a total of 3 times)

Stage 3. 25 yards. 14 seconds (standing kneeling)

From a guard position fire two rounds to the chest standing, speed load, drop to kneeling and fire 2 more rounds in 14 seconds. repeat once (for a total of two times)

Stage 4. 15 yards. 5 seconds (slung standing)

From a slung position (weapon out of hands slung either in a team sling or african or american carry) fire 2 rounds to the chest standing in 5 seconds. repeat twice ( for a total of 3 times)

Stage 5. 15 yards. 3.5 seconds (Kneeling)

From the guard position drop to kneeling and fire 2 rounds to the chest in 3.5 seconds. Repeat twice (for a total of 3 times)

Stage 6. 7 yards 1.5 seconds. (standing)

From the guard position fire two rounds to the chest in 1.5 seconds. Repeat twice. (for a total of three times)

Stage 7. 5 yards 1.5 seconds. (standing) This stage is the most difficult

From the guard postion fire two rounds to the chest and one round to the head in 1.5 seconds. Repeat three times (for a total of four times)

Stage 8. 3 yards. 1.0 seconds.

From the guard postion fire two rounds to the chest in 1 seconds. Repeat twice (for a total of 3 times)


Scoring is the same as the Patrol rifle except you need a score of 225 to pass (90%)

Try the Patrol one the SERT one was put their for you to try for fun to test your skills. The Patrol one is fairly easy and I have only had a few officers fail ever. There is a bolt action patrol rifle course (made for Fish and Wildlife Troopers) but I don't have it commited to memory. Its allows much more time for the bolt. There is also a sniper rifle course.
Pat

Cosmoline
April 12, 2006, 01:06 AM
Maybe you should practice more with a semi to get the most out of it Cosmoline... The time you spend cycling the bolt you could be spending aiming and pulling the trigger.

If you do it right, you're getting back on target while manipulating the bolt or lever. If you're doing it wrong or have the wrong type of rifle for the job, you have to break the weld each time.

Cosmoline
April 12, 2006, 01:09 AM
AR15's are not popular because of a tacticool image. They just happen to be the best tool for the job

Nothing against AR's, but why would LEO's need to have suppressive fire capability? And why the devil would LEO's in UP HERE want a .223 as their long gun of choice? An LEO in Palmer or Willow with an AR is the perfect example of a good idea taken WAY too far. They would be far better served with a firearm at least capable of taking a moose. But that's for another thread.

For these purposes, I see NO PROBLEM with an AR so long as it is not so laden with extras and heavy mags as to exceed the weight limit of the class.

355sigfan
April 12, 2006, 01:10 AM
Most of us here should know how to properly work a bolt action without dismounting the gun between rounds. That being said semi autos still cycle far faster than you can work a bolt. They recoil less because the action soaks up some of the recoil.

Personally I would not want to be stuck with a bolt gun in a close quarters gun fight. If I were stuck with a lever action or a pump I would feel fine. But not a bolt. Its way too slow.

QUOTE
Nothing against AR's, but why would LEO's need to have suppressive fire capability? And why the devil would LEO's in UP HERE want a .223 as their long gun of choice? An LEO in Palmer or Willow with an AR is the perfect example of a good idea taken WAY too far. They would be far better served with a firearm at least capable of taking a moose. But that's for another thread.
END QUOTE

You don't need AR's just for suppressive fire. In fact suppressive fire is almost never allowed in law enforcement situations except perhaps an active shooter who is a sniper. Also a 223 is an ideal choice for law enforcement everywhere. Its a great caliber for what we do. It is accurate easy to fire, has excelleng stopping power inside 300 yards with soft and hollow points, and has limited penetration inside bodies and homes.

The Moose topic is another situation and thats why you have a shotgun and slugs available. Pick the right tool for the job. If you picked a rifle that could kill moose and bears you would have a terrible close quarters fighing rifle due to over penetration and excessive recoil. The 223 semi auto carbine should be in every cruiser in this country and its on its way to being there. I am not saying we need to get rid of our shotguns they still serve some purposes like animal control, less lethal applications and breaching.

Pat

Cosmoline
April 12, 2006, 01:13 AM
Thanks for posting that info on the course. It would be really interesting to run it with a CZ mini. On the face of it I see no real problems meeting those time requirements.

As far as the Evan Ramsey situation, the best solution to that would of course for the VP to confront the loon with something more substantial than a plastic baseball bat. A rifle of any type in the office would have settled his hash. As I recall from the depos, Edwards would certainly have had a good shot at him had be been armed. SWAT and other fast reaction teams have proven to be of limited utility in such situations because it's not possible for them to get to the scene in time to prevent the slaughter.

355sigfan
April 12, 2006, 01:25 AM
I think you will have difficulty with the 100 yard stage in 8 seconds. Most shooters of average ability with a AR finish between 6.5 and 7 seconds. So throw working the bolt in there you should be right at 8 seconds or over.


The 50 yards stage will be almost impossible with a bolt. Getting two shots off in 6 seconds is hard for someone with a semi auto 223. (remember you have to start from standing and go prone) Most shooters of average ability are finishing with in 5.5 seconds here.

The 25 yards stage should be easy with any rifle honestly and personally I feel they allowed too much time for this stage even with the reload.

The 15 yard stage from slung position is do able with a bolt if your skilled. in my opinon.

The 15 yard stage from kneeling in 3.5 seconds is is also do able.

The 7 yards stage with 2 shots in 2 seconds may test your skill with a bolt and I can forseee overtimes here.

The fail to stop at 5 yards may be do able in 3.5 seconds with a bolt but it wil not be easy.

The last stage will be very difficult 2 rounds in 1.5 seconds with a bolt even at point blank is tough.
Of couse feel free to prove me wrong. If your in the Kenai Peninsula area perhaps we could shoot together and the loser bys lunch. I would do bear but I don't drink.
Pat

grimjaw
April 12, 2006, 01:27 AM
The 223 is safe to use inside and it penetrates less in homes than most pistol rounds.

I've seen you say this often, Pat, but if .223 penetrates six layers of drywall, and pistol rounds (take your pick) penetrate eight layers of drywall, that's still at least three or four layers too many any way you slice it. Where does the idea come from that stray .223 is going to hit plaster and turn into creampuff? A frangible round for rifle or pistol would be preferable if overpenetration is *any* concern (and when is it not?). I'm sure frangible rifle rounds would be more effective on the intended target than pistol, however.

jmm

355sigfan
April 12, 2006, 01:31 AM
Active shooters are tough. The current training is bucking what we have taught cops for years. (which was stop secure the perimeter and get intel on the situation call swat ext) Now we teach to just go in and shoot the bastard basically. We sacrafice a lot of officer safety and thats as it should be. I could not live with myself if I sat idly by as some kids were being killed. In my current department we work alone most of the time and realiscally there will be no back up if we get an active shooter. Thats why having the right tool and keeping your skills up is so important. Active shooters are the biggest justification and reason for arming all line level patrol officers with rifles and carbines in my opinion.

I feel your thread may have been better titled if you would have said a Utility rifle concept. I see a utility rifle as a general jack of all trades civilian weapon that can do anything from home defense to putting meat on the table. For this role I kind of like the Marlin 1895 45 70 Guild gun with Ghost ring sights. Thats just my opinion. This is your thread did not mean to tell you what to do.
Pat

355sigfan
April 12, 2006, 01:34 AM
QUOTE
I've seen you say this often, Pat, but if .223 penetrates six layers of drywall, and pistol rounds (take your pick) penetrate eight layers of drywall, that's still at least three or four layers too many any way you slice it. Where does the idea come from that stray .223 is going to hit plaster and turn into creampuff? A frangible round for rifle or pistol would be preferable if overpenetration is *any* concern (and when is it not?). I'm sure frangible rifle rounds would be more effective on the intended target than pistol, however.
END QUOTE

Forgive me I should not have used the word safe to shoot inside. I should have qualified that as safer to shoot inside compared to pistol rounds and other rifles. You need to be aware of your target as well of whats it surroundings are. The 223 does give me one huge edge. I have to be less concerned with whats right behind my intended target. I have not personally seen a shooting where a 223 soft or hollow point exited a human body.
Pat

Fire4Effect
April 12, 2006, 03:40 AM
So I don't disrupt the heated debate in progress I will quietly post that my Norinco Sporter fits the bill.

shootinstudent
April 12, 2006, 04:01 AM
I like the patrol rifle idea. I hope it takes off with everyone choosing .30-30 marlins, so the value of mine will increase and I'll finally be telling the truth when I justify my purchases as investments.

The Marlin works for me as an everyday gun because it has sufficient power for good sized animals, and it points like a nice shotgun. I'm not nearly as fast with a lever as I am with a semi-auto for repeat shots, but I'd think for most situations a patrol rifle would encounter, a lightning fast first shot is what one needs.

Maybe the AR is god's gift to shooting (I certainly love mine), but I don't see why it's impossible that Cosmoline might get better use out of his bolt gun. I sure do out of my levergun, and I get more power and the ability to shoot a wide range of ammo...light loads for smaller animals, heavier loads for bigger animals, and off-the-shelf .30-30 for everything in between.

LAK
April 12, 2006, 08:31 AM
Cosmoline,

I agree a scope might be considered an optional accessory, and personally I would definately not want more than 3X; 2X being better IMO. But some may prefer a scope for precision's sake in many situations.

--------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Correia
April 12, 2006, 12:34 PM
Cosmo, if you had called it something else, we wouldn't be giving you so much crap. :p

JShirley
April 12, 2006, 12:50 PM
We've got way to many guys on this board who've shot thicker skinned game with buck (pigs) and have gotten negligable penetration.

Yeah. I was there when Al Thompson shot a pig, a Euro extract furry critter. It was pretty, nice tusks and everything, but only maybe 180 lbs. At that time, he used alternating slug and buck. We compared the two.

Al doesn't shoot any big game with buckshot any more. Like you, I believe he now says buck is okay inside a house, and that's about it.

Don't get me wrong; the 12 ga shotgun has its place. 2 out of 6 or 7 (getting old already) deer I took my last hunting season were taken with 12 ga shotgun, one at full run through thick brush. With reasonable shot placement, reduced recoil slug works great. :)

John

Nashmack
April 13, 2006, 11:51 AM
I just bought a spanish FR7. This is my ultimate patrol rifle:)

CarbineKid
April 13, 2006, 12:08 PM
I have often wondered why CZ has not come out with a semi auto rifle/carbine. It just seems wrong for such a great company to be lacking in one HUGE area. As far as a patrol carbine, what about Kel Tecs new rifles. The SU-16C or CA seems like and ideal choice. Ide also mention the PLR...but its a "pistol". I will admidt I do not have one yet...but its next on the list.

Cosmoline
April 13, 2006, 04:00 PM
Cosmo, if you had called it something else, we wouldn't be giving you so much crap

Oh, I don't mind. Like I said I'm not wedded to the name. This thread has given me a lot of food for thought, but I'm not giving up on the theory. I'm convinced there's a class of firearms out there that haven't been identified or developed properly. They're like a breed of dog that has no official support or identity.

benEzra
April 13, 2006, 04:42 PM
Nothing against AR's, but why would LEO's need to have suppressive fire capability?
I don't think suppressive fire capability enters the equation at all. If it did, they wouldn't be issuing AR-15's, they'd be issuing M16's and M249's.

(I know some departments do issue M16's, but I suspect it's a cost issue since milsurp M16's are provided to departments at very low cost, as I understand it.)

mustanger98
April 13, 2006, 06:16 PM
This thread has given me a lot of food for thought, but I'm not giving up on the theory. I'm convinced there's a class of firearms out there that haven't been identified or developed properly. They're like a breed of dog that has no official support or identity.

I think that class of firearms is "general purpose" and we all have that kind in one form or another. Some of us are better than others at applying whatever types we happen to have in certain areas.

I'd like to see a guy with a little lightweight boltgun run that course successfully. It'd prove the point that it can be done. Maybe not quite as fast as with an AR, but close and within the time frame with the boltgun in the right hands. I recall some Brits talking about how they trained to rapidly cycle and fire the No.4 Enfields accurately. I believe it's all in what you're used to.

ghost squire
April 13, 2006, 08:00 PM
I would truly enjoy seeing the results of that! Actually....

I would love seeing the results of a competition between an M14, FAL, AR-15, Enfield and Mauser.

LAK
April 14, 2006, 06:23 AM
From a low ready at 7 yards fire 2 rounds in 2 seconds at a ISPC Brussels target. For more of a challenge on the SERT course fire 2 rounds in 1.5 seconds. Or for more range. Go from standing to prone and fire 2 rounds in 8 seconds from 100 yards. For SERT standard complete it in 6 seconds. That is not going to happen with a bolt gun.
2 rounds in 1.5 seconds at 7 yards would be very tough, but not impossible by any means. The rest is very feasible; the proper manipulation of a bolt-action should be measured in a fraction of a second. Or let me put it another way - someone with a stopwatch ttempting to "time" a proficient bolt operator opening and closing the bolt will have great difficulty indeed. It's that fast.

As Cosmoline points out, a bolt-action can be manipulated as fast or faster than most autoloaders can cycle, although this is no doubt significantly less so with small bores and pistol caliber carbines which might have faster cyclic rates. In the case of the leverguns though, this is pretty absolute.

I would doubt that most of those shooting in the described 7 yard drill are using anything other than small bore rifle or pistol caliber carbines. With the faster cycling time many are no doubt able to place an aimed snapshot, followed by a quick second based on a flash sight picture, and achieve an acceptable score.

Try that with a true medium bore autoloader shooting any load equivalent to military ball.

As an aside, two shot drills with a rifle at single targets seem alittle redundant to me, since the whole idea of using a rifle is it's decisiveness to begin with. Single round drills at multiple targets, widely spaced, and at varying distances makes more sense to me when applying a rifle.

---------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Nematocyst
April 14, 2006, 07:13 AM
LAK, Cosmo, et al,

Where would you put a pump (e.g., Rem 7615) with respect to the auto, bolt, & lever
in terms of firing speed/accurarcy?

I'm guessing it'd fall between auto & lever/bolt. But that's a guess. I have no data, and insufficient experience (only a Rem 870, a Marlin 336, & a CZ 452).

Nem

Cosmoline
April 14, 2006, 01:15 PM
Pumps are seriously underrated. I've seen one of the old .357 pumps in action and it's darned impressive. If kept to a moderate chambering, an experienced shooter can fire one as fast as a shotgun.

355sigfan
April 14, 2006, 02:30 PM
QUOTE
2 rounds in 1.5 seconds at 7 yards would be very tough, but not impossible by any means. The rest is very feasible; the proper manipulation of a bolt-action should be measured in a fraction of a second. Or let me put it another way - someone with a stopwatch ttempting to "time" a proficient bolt operator opening and closing the bolt will have great difficulty indeed. It's that fast.


As Cosmoline points out, a bolt-action can be manipulated as fast or faster than most autoloaders can cycle, although this is no doubt significantly less so with small bores and pistol caliber carbines which might have faster cyclic rates. In the case of the leverguns though, this is pretty absolute.

END QUOTE

Its pretty much impossible and no a bolt can not be worked faster than a semi auto can cycle. Unless you can cycle the bolt at between 700 and 900 rounds per minute.

QUOTE

I would doubt that most of those shooting in the described 7 yard drill are using anything other than small bore rifle or pistol caliber carbines. With the faster cycling time many are no doubt able to place an aimed snapshot, followed by a quick second based on a flash sight picture, and achieve an acceptable score.

Try that with a true medium bore autoloader shooting any load equivalent to military ball.

END QUOTE

Yes some people are using 308 carbines and its very do able with a semi auto in 308. The only drill that is not is the SERT course fail to stop at 5 yards in 1.5 seconds.

QUOTE
As an aside, two shot drills with a rifle at single targets seem alittle redundant to me, since the whole idea of using a rifle is it's decisiveness to begin with. Single round drills at multiple targets, widely spaced, and at varying distances makes more sense to me when applying a rifle.
END QUOTE

We train everyone to fire at least 2 rounds into a target as a minimum standard responce. Not even 308 ball puts people down in one round all the time. Each badguy gets seconds.
Pat

Correia
April 14, 2006, 02:34 PM
Sorry guys, go shoot some 3gun. Shoot some ViMBAR. (vintage military guns, plenty of Enfields and Mausers there) Go compete head to head with guys with autos, and bolt guns. There is no need to pontificate on this thread, when some of us actually do it all of the time are telling you that there is no comparison.

mustanger98, no comparison. Not even close. Take the fastest Enfield shooter there has ever been and put them up against a average 3gunner with an AR and the Enfielder will be hard pressed to beat him. Take a good/practiced 3gunner, and the Enfielder is going to get smoked.

Pumps are faster than bolts or levers, and you can do good work. I'm one of the fastest pump gunners I'm aware of. (2.11 Dozier with an 870) I know of some guys who are faster with a pump, but I haven't shot with them in person yet. I can go very fast with a pump. However I'm way faster with an auto. A proficient and practiced shooter with an auto can beat me head to head. A good shooter with an auto will beat me hands down.

LAK, once again, no need to pontificate. There are divisions in 3gun for .308 on up shooters. These are usually called HeMan division. (some variant of iron sighted .308 or larger, single stack .45 or larger, and pump 12 gauge) but can vary match to match. And yes, you can go extreamly fast with a medium bore battle rifle. I usually use a FAL variant. Once again, no comparison to a bolt whatsoever.

Multiple shots on one target with a rifle being silly? Hardly. Sometimes people are hard to stop. Fact of nature.

Even if you go with your single round on multiple widely spaced targets drill, (yep, do that in 3gun also) the auto is still probably going to win. And if you have enough multiple targets, they have higher capactiy, and faster reload times.

Some of you guys really need to go out and watch some well practiced shooters. There is no manipulation time. Only aquire, fire, repeat. Except for the good shooters, the aquire time is measured in fractions of a second. I don't care how smoking fast you are with a bolt, and I've seen some Vimbar guys that are absolutely amazing, but there is no comparison. You take that super fast guy with the 03a3 and put him on an M14 and he is going to be faster.

ghost squire
April 14, 2006, 03:42 PM
a bolt-action can be manipulated as fast or faster than most autoloaders can cycle, although this is no doubt significantly less so with small bores and pistol caliber carbines which might have faster cyclic rates.

Ummm.... I doubt that. Although if you can cycle a bolt 12 times a second (M14 firing rate) I would love to see that and your hand catch on fire.

And double taps are not unusual. If I'm not mistaken, many professional institutions have and do teach multiple shots on target for .308s. One for example would be the Rhodesians, specifically the Light Infantry and various special forces organizations. I'm not absolutely sure on that one, but 99 percent sure. It makes sense, it doubles your chances of scrambling his eggs, and more then doubles his chance of dying period. Although I don't think its necessary at range like it is with a 5.56.

mustanger98
April 14, 2006, 04:14 PM
mustanger98, no comparison. Not even close. Take the fastest Enfield shooter there has ever been and put them up against a average 3gunner with an AR and the Enfielder will be hard pressed to beat him. Take a good/practiced 3gunner, and the Enfielder is going to get smoked.

Correia, You said "average 3gunner". Now, considering how many 3gun competitors are police/military vs. how many are weekend gamers (and I'm curious to know real numbers on that), I wonder what an average 3gunner is. If this "average" 3gunner can't half shoot, a well trained Enfielder is gonna be the one doing the smoking.

Not all good shooters shoot AR's and not all AR'ers are good shots. And take any type shooter with any type rifle and you'll find some better than others. That's just the way it is.

Quaamik
April 14, 2006, 04:55 PM
I'm thinking that there is actually 2 "catagories" that this discussion addresses. The way I see the definitions, this is how I'd break it up:

The "Patrol Rifle":
This a police tool. Carried in the patrol car most of the time, and only deployed during special tactical situations. It might or might not be the best choice for SWAT teams and entry teams, both of which have needs that aren't always the same as an office on patrol.

The "Utility Rifle":
This is a rifle used by civilians for home defense or carried in thier vehicle for defense where legal. By civilans, I'm including off duty LEOs.

My choice for a patrol rifle:
Let me preface this by saying that I'm not a cop and never have been one.
I'd choose either a AR-15 with a 16.5" barrel, a Mini 14, or Mini 30. If I could get the the AR in 6.8 SPC I would. The reason is that an officer who needs to grab a rifle needs ALL the advantages of a rifle. Range, penetration and stopping power, yet they might have to deal with multiple aggerssors or situations that require multiple shots (so a fast followup is a must). Both .223 & 7.62x39 have steel core ammo (in the case of a hollywood shootout scenario) and commercial HPs, soft points, and franagible rounds commonly available. 6.8 SPC has more energy than either, but ammo (especially specialty ammo) isn't as available.

The AK varients are a non starter for one reason: police need the pubic to percieve them as the good guys. The officer who responds to a scene and pulls out an AK doesn't automaticly have that. Imagine a "disturbed" individual, wearing mil surplus camo (or part of thier old mitary uniform), in a face off with a cop carrying an AK? The picture will make the front page of the local news. The following days picture will be of the veterens protesting in front of the burning police station.

For me, a "utility rifle" has many more options. For one, weight is not near as much an issue, as the ONLY time it is likely to be carried is when the SHTF. For another, price will almost always be an issue (some LEOs buy thier own rifles, ALL of us civies buy our own). It should be able to fire and reload quickly, but actual capacity isn't as critical. Caliber should be a rifle / carbine cartridge. Pistol calibers are nice, but if you NEED a rifle, even magnum pistol cartridges are a poor substitute. Note thatthe only times a civilian is likely to NEED a defensive rifle are when they are being attacked by large animals or preditory humans. Large animals need adequate penetration. Preditory humans may where body armor. 'Nuff said.

My choices (in order):
Semi Auto:
Mini 30
Mini 14
AR w/ 16.5" barrel
M1 Carbine
SOCOM 16 (in this position because of price only)
M1A Scout Squad (in this position because of price only)
Lever:
Browning BLR in .308 with a 1.5X scope (the irons suck on these)
Marlin 1895G "guide Gun" in .45-70
Browning BLR in .243 with a 1.5X scope (the irons suck on these)
Marlin 336 in .30-30
Bolt:
Ruger M77 Frontier in .308 with 1.5X scout scope
Ruger M77 Frontier in .243 with 1.5X scout scope
Enfield jungle carbine in .303
Pump:
Remington 7600 carbine in .30-06 (only caliber offered in 18.5" barrel)
Mossberg M590 12 gauge (ghost ring sights, 20 inch barrel)

The last is a shotgun, but if used with slugs would fill the role. It has the added advantage of being able to be used with buckshot as well.

Correia
April 14, 2006, 05:01 PM
mustanger98, agreed that not all shooters of one type of system are superior to anybody else. It comes down to the individual shooter.

Average 3gunner shoots about fifty times as much as the average internet poster. :) Seriously, you asked about LE/Mil vs regular. I would say the % is going to vary by club. Mine usually has about 50 shooters. I would say that five or six of them are LE, and five or six are Mil any given match. The top are spread out. Some of the best local rifle guys I know are a fireman, a plastics guy, and a hair dresser.

So how about this. Lets take twenty average shooters. Give 10 quality Enfields. Give 10 quality FALs. Give each of them 1,000 rounds of practice ammo. Then have a shoot off.

Sorry man. I like bolt guns too. They shine at some things. But don't try to make them something they aren't, and they will never be as fast.

9055
April 14, 2006, 05:29 PM
Its pretty much impossible and no a bolt can not be worked faster than a semi auto can cycle. Unless you can cycle the bolt at between 700 and 900 rounds per minute.


That may be true for Full Auto but not for semi auto as stated. :rolleyes:

mustanger98
April 14, 2006, 07:19 PM
Average 3gunner shoots about fifty times as much as the average internet poster. Seriously, you asked about LE/Mil vs regular. I would say the % is going to vary by club. Mine usually has about 50 shooters. I would say that five or six of them are LE, and five or six are Mil any given match. The top are spread out. Some of the best local rifle guys I know are a fireman, a plastics guy, and a hair dresser.

Those numbers are a lot like I'd expect. How do the scores run? The automatic assumption is that most of them run AR's because "everybody does". Right?

So how about this. Lets take twenty average shooters. Give 10 quality Enfields. Give 10 quality FALs. Give each of them 1,000 rounds of practice ammo. Then have a shoot off.

Okay now, we're talking average shooters, but how many average 3gunners are also Enfielders? One caveat I've been operating with is the weapon is in the hands of someone who knows it well and that's probably better than average. If you have 10 average FALers and 10 average Enfielders, you may have a pretty even contest, but suppose all 20 are average ARFers which you just handed the FALs and Enfields to and that's probably going to scew the results based on bias against boltguns in general even given 1Krds of practice. A certain number of the semi-auto snobs will be overconfident and either fumble or miss or just not be fast enough. That's going to drag the ARFers down in the standings. Ever hear about the race between the tortoise and the hare? And if you have the squads exchange rifles and re-run, the ones who were just overconfident will, with Enfields in hand, not know what to do with them. The Enfielders may or may not have problems with the FALs depending on their experience with them.

Sorry man. I like bolt guns too. They shine at some things. But don't try to make them something they aren't, and they will never be as fast.

The point I and another poster or several keep trying to make- which is repeatedly lost on the semi-auto only people- is that it's not the rifle, but the operator. The weapon- assuming accurate aimed fire is the goal- is no faster, despite being semi-auto or not, than it's operator is at getting back on target and squeezing the trigger. Each rifle shines for a number of reasons, but not in the hands of someone lacking the expertise for the situation.

Yet you just said it:
agreed that not all shooters of one type of system are superior to anybody else. It comes down to the individual shooter

Chris Rhines
April 14, 2006, 09:26 PM
The automatic assumption is that most of them run AR's because "everybody does". Right? Wrong. The reason that everyone runs an AR is because every other rifle platform on the market has been tested, tried, and found wanting. That is not to say that the AR is perfect, nor that something won't come along in the future and dethrone it (I have high hopes for the FN SCAR in this regard.) It simply means that the AR-15 platform is the best choice for rapidly engaging multiple targets at various ranges from ~0-300 yards.

The point I and another poster or several keep trying to make- which is repeatedly lost on the semi-auto only people- is that it's not the rifle, but the operator. No. It is the rifle, AND the operator, AND the situation.

I run around 0.25-0.3sec splits at 25 yards with my ARs (A-zone hits.) I'm an average 3-gunner, at best. For comparason's sake, what are your split times like with a bolt gun at 25 yards? I doubt it's possible to press the trigger, manipulate the bolt, and press the trigger again in a quarter-second, to say nothing of hitting anything.

At longer range (100-300y), my split and transition times vary a lot more. Even so, it takes a lot longer to cycle the action on a bolt gun than it does to recover from the muzzle flip on a semi-auto.

There are some (rare) situations in which a bolt gun can keep up with a self-loader. The self-loader will never be any slower. Breaks of the game.

- Chris

Correia
April 14, 2006, 10:14 PM
How do the scores break down? What they do for a living has jack squat to do with how they place.

Sorry man, me and Chris do this kind of thing for fun. It isn't a fashion war that causes everybody to use an AR. We've got guys out there who would sell their Grandmother to the catfood factory if it would take .05 off of their split times. These guy would shoot black powder Lee Metfords if it made them win.

I'm an oddity and that I enjoy competing with off type guns. I've run FALs and for the last couple of years, a Vepr. I do rather well at the local level. But I still get smacked down pretty hard by a good shooter with an AR. And the sucky thing is, I'm still better with an AR, and I'm one of the better AK shooters I know of.

And yes, it is the Indian not the arrow. But arrow vs. Winchester and 99% of the time you're gonna lose. :p

I'm not a semi-auto only guy, but for what Cosmo outlined in this thread, it wins. I own lots of bolts, sell bolt guns, and enjoy bolt guns. But I know their limitations, and they ain't fast.

Snobs, fumble and miss? And bolt gunners never get confident, fumble and miss? :D

How about this. Take the best bolt gunner in the world. I'm talking the king of fricking Siam mack daddy of all bolt gunners. Have him and an A class IPSC rifle guy go head to head and shoot 355Sigfan's classifier. Compare. :p

355sigfan
April 14, 2006, 10:24 PM
9055
Semi auto guns are able to cycle just as fast as full auto guns assuming the operator can work the trigger fast enough. The cycle rate is the same in theory. Any questions
Pat

mustanger98
April 14, 2006, 10:32 PM
Correia, I believe you've taken some of what I've said out of context. I never said what they did for a living made a difference to their scores. You said I did. A certain amount of what I'm bringing up here is testing what is against what seems like should be.

Snobs, fumble and miss? And bolt gunners never get confident, fumble and miss?

First off, I use the word "snobs" loosely to describe people who're so stuck on tacticool they can't see anything else working. I didn't say "confident"; I said "over-confident" meaning to the point they feel they cannot fumble and miss only to find they've worked themselves into a mental trap. Or maybe they just slow down because of that same mental trap, hence the reference to the tortoise and the hare. I never said the other guy, the boltgunner in this case, couldn't.

I shall ignore Chris Rhines' post as it appears to have a lot more incurable angst.

This thread has ceased to be interesting.

9055
April 14, 2006, 10:45 PM
Pat,
Are you trying to say that 'realistically' an AR-15 can shoot 11 to 15 rounds a second in semi-auto? Please go to www.colt.com and show me where Colt says there's a cyclic rate for AR-15s. They don't list it but they do for M-16s and true M-4s in full auto. (I think you're just weasel wording again)

Quaamik
April 14, 2006, 11:51 PM
The cyclic rate listed by manufacurers is how fast the gun will fire when set on a burst or full auto setting. The cyclic speed of the action determines that.

The cyclic speed of an AR-15 should be very close to that of an M-16, there might be a slight difference due to the difference in bolt weights, sripngs and such between the semi only AR and full auto M-16. How fast it is humanly possible to work the trigger, without interupting the cycle by pulling a trigger when the action hasn't reset is another thing. I think the world record is around 350 rpm from one hand (aimed fire from a handgun).

I doubt anything over 240 rpm is possible while engaging multiple targets. For those who are math challenged, that would be 4 targets a second.

As to the AR being better than every other platform tried, bull pucky. That's been said about the 1911 in relation to pistol competitions and I can tell you as someone who has shot 1911s in competition it's BS. There is a guy or two I have shot bowling pins against who can wipe the floor with most of the shooters while firing DA revolvers. And one who can be competitive with a SA revolver. Just because one platform is easier for the average shooter, doesn't mean a good shooter can't shoot far better with a different one.

355sigfan
April 15, 2006, 12:49 AM
9055 as a Colt armorer I will tell you the AR15 can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger up to 700 to 900 rounds per min. Some people like Bob Mundan can fire a Single action revolver at 600 rounds per minute. Its not unbelieveable that someone with a fast trigger finger could make an AR15 reach its potential. Other than slight differences in bolt carrier weights the M16 and Ar15 will have identical cycle rates. Its not weisle wording its just the facts.

Quaamik I agree with a lot of what you said. But I must point out a da revolver and a 1911 are much closer in rates of fire than are semi auto rifles vs bolts. A DA revolver can be fired as fast as you can pull the trigger. In some cases thats faster than most semi auto pistols. A good revolver shooter and a good semi auto shooter are very close. A good bolt gun shooter will never come close to the speed of a good semi auto shooter.

And just for argument the 1911 is the about the easier pistol to shoot fast and well and if just the guns are compared it stomps a da revolver in speed competitions. Hence the domination of the 1911 in these events. The AR15 is one of the better rifle designes and it shows by those who chose to use it.

Pat

Cosmoline
April 15, 2006, 01:34 AM
I suspect part of the problem is most shooters simply do not know how to operate a bolt action quickly, and haven't been exposed to the sort of bolt action rifles designed for rapid fire action. They've been trained from an early age to cycle them slowly and with care, often while using powerful optics. But many military bolt actions such as the Swede Mauser and SMLE can be cycled with extreme speed if you unlearn what you were taught in boy scouts and use your arm as a piston. I've gone over this in an earlier thread re. the proper way to cycle a Mosin-Nagant. Among other things, you stop trying to coddle the bolt. You SLAM it open and SLAM it home in one clean movement that begins and ends at the trigger. By the time you're back on target after the recoil, you should also be finished with the cycle. The little CZ carbine can also be rapid fired with accuracy. However, a cumbersome hunting rifle with a long action and a big scope isn't designed for this sort of use.

Correia
April 15, 2006, 03:32 AM
Cosmo, I agree that most shooters don't know how to work a bolt worth a damn, but I'm talking about good bolt shooters. I can smoke with an Enfield, but I can't come close to auto speeds. The best bolt gunners on earth can't either.

To give you an idea, do you know what a Bill drill is? Usually for pistols it is from the buzzer, 6 shots, in the A zone of one target, as fast as you can. It can be done at different ranges.

At one match I was in, we ran a 75 yard rifle Bill drill. I did it in 1.6 seconds with an M4gery with an EOtech. And dude, I didn't win that stage either. How fast can you humanly run a bolt through that?

Nematocyst
April 15, 2006, 03:39 AM
You people made me spend two hours today reading about AR-15's.

:fire:

God, all I wanted was a simple Browning A-Bolt in 7mm08
(which is still on my list for deer hunting).

Now, I'm looking at AR-15's.

Sheesh.

Maybe just a simple Rem 7615P (http://www.remingtonle.com/rifles/7615.htm) would do. Not as fast as an AR (granted), and the magazine is smaller,
but less expensive for a struggling business owner & still faster than a bolt.

{Except it's chambered in Remington .223, not 5.56 (http://www.combatsimulations.com/ar15/). After all that reading about AR's, now I know the difference, and am less enamoured of the 7615P as a result. Oh, frump.}

Nem

Cosmoline
April 15, 2006, 04:16 AM
I'm not talking about competition shooting. My point is simply that bolt actions are a lot faster than people give them credit for, and can be faster than some semis in aimed fire conditions. That doesn't mean they're going to beat a tricked out AR in competition speed firing. I'm not talking about competition speed drills. I'm talking about a class of rifles that includes both semis and other types of actions. For some of you, the ONLY class of rifle on the planet suitable for defense or police work is the AR-15. You firmly believe every other rifle is obsolete for anything but sniping, hunting or cowboy action. This is BUNK.

355sigfan
April 15, 2006, 04:21 AM
AR's are not the only suitable rifles, AK's will do, so will Sigs, HK's ext. Bolts, levers, pumps and single shots are obsolete. While they may work they are far from the best choice as a gunfighting weapon. Thats the raw unadulterated un pc fact of life. About the only bolt action semi comparision where the bolt would win would be comparing a Barret 50 to a bolt action 22 lr.
pat

9055
April 15, 2006, 05:25 AM
355 and Quaamik,

I can agree that an AR-15 can probably do close to 700-900 rpm accounting for trigger reset after each shot provided you rig it to a machine capable of pulling the trigger that fast, but let's be realistic. To throw out a number like that and say a semi auto is capable of shooting that fast is really extreme. As Pat said in post #115, its a theory.

ugaarguy
April 15, 2006, 05:41 AM
I've noticed several comments here on the AR variant vs 7615 pricing. Going to www.impactguns.com yielded an interesting result. A 16" DPMS A2 style carbine with 6 pos retractable stock is $680, a Remington 7615 is $680. If you prefer a fixed stock the A2 20" bull barrel from DPMS is a mere $700. A Bushmaster standard 20" A2 is still a respectable $800. The AR variants are clearly (to me) the better deal. Remington really needs to wake up on the 7615. For the bargain deal Kel-Tec's SU16 C or CA variants run $520, and the CA is even legal in the state of CA. The other Bargains are the SS/Synthetic Ruger Mini 14 & 30 at $590 & $600 respectively. I'd personally take the Kel-Tec SU16 CA for these reasons: piston operated, has iron sights & weaver rail, uses standard AR-15/M-16 Mags, lightweight, folds for transport, and it has the cleanest look of all the SU16 variants. Ohh yeah, and the SU16s are the most economical of the bunch. The time tested ruggedness of the Ruger Minis puts them in a VERY close second in my book.

355sigfan
April 15, 2006, 05:48 AM
Yep its not that practical but the aimed fire rate with the AR15 is also much higher than a bolt gun. WHen I say AR15 I mean all semi autos. .25 second splits at 25 yards is do able with A zone hits.
Pat

Nematocyst
April 15, 2006, 06:49 AM
This continues to be an interesting thread.

I've posed a question at the end of this post - which may be slightly OT in this thread, but not much due to my broad intentions for a new rifle - but first, some background.

For some months, I've been looking at rifle options for my next weapon.
(The current collection: shotgun (user name numerical digits + P); a revolver; a pistol; a .22LR bolt.

For a second rifle, I'm interested in hunting mostly deer (mulies and white tail), with defense as a second motivation. (My 870P is my main defensive weapon, hanging only a few feet from my sleeping spot.)

For meat hunting, I started looking at bolts and pumps.
For a while, I looked at Remington 7600s.
Then I found the 7615P in .223 and became momentarily excited.

I came to my senses, realizing that .223 is not a suitable rnd for deer in optimal conditions.

After that, I started considering larger calibers: .308, .30-06, .270, 7mm08.

For the past few months, I've been planning (and saving) for a Browning A-Bolt in 7mm08.

But this thread has made me again consider the AR's (damn alluring they are), including whether they (and .223) could be used for deer. (Short answer: theoretically yes, with good shot placement, but not legally in most states in pre-TEOTWAWKI conditions.)

But the most interesting result of reading this thread has been to make me reconsider a Remington 7600 in a .30-06 carbine (w/ 18.5" barrel) (http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire_rifles/model_7600_specs.asp).

It's based on my beloved (and familiar) 870P pump action (I agree with Cosmo: pumps are underrated), and about the same length and weight.

It's got an awesome array of rnds - from 125 gr to 220 gr.

It could serve as a SHTF rifle, covering both hunting needs (with attention to shot placement given that short barrel) and defense needs requiring a carbine.
_______

So, to my question, the answer to which could influence my choice:

I have no (= zero) experience with AK, AR & other autos.
The only auto rifle that I've ever owned was a Remington Nylon 66 in .22LR years ago.

So, how do you compare ease of maintenance,
including field stripping & cleaning,
for an AR v. that for a pump gun like a 7600?

Remember: I'm familiar with my pump shotgun already,
but have no experience with an auto. That's why I'm asking.

Seeking simplicity and functionality,

Nem

355sigfan
April 15, 2006, 06:56 AM
The AR is a military weapon and can handle abuse and rough conditions far better than the Remington 7600 sporting rifle. You need to decide what you want a crap hits the fan combat rifle or a deer shooter. AR's are not hard to clean and maintain they were meant to be used to soldiers in field conditions.
Pat

Nematocyst
April 15, 2006, 06:58 AM
OK, fair enough.

But part of that decision involves my question about
ease of maintenance, field stripping & cleaning an AR v. a 7600.

And your answer is...?

Clean97GTI
April 15, 2006, 07:10 AM
355Sigfan, I get the feeling that a manually operated action is probably going to be more reliable and rugged than a semi-auto system. The fact that its based on the 870 action leads me to believe its quite rugged, reliable and proven.

While the AR is quite accurate, the 7600 also sports a full floating barrel which rivals the accuracy of a bolt gun.

This isn't some cheap plinker we're talking here and the 7600 comes in more stout calibers. I like the 7600 as a patrol rifle.

Chris Rhines
April 15, 2006, 08:48 AM
Yes, pointing out flaws in an argument is just incurably angsty, isn't it?

Sigh.

Why don't we let reality settle this dispute? Let's have all interested parties run 355sigfans's COF against a shot timer and post the results here.

---

Nematocyst,

Never had a 7600P in my hands, but field-stripping and cleaning an AR is beyold easy. Stripping it takes about fifteen seconds - remove the magazine and check the chamber, push out two captive pins with your fingers, seperate the upper and lower, pull the bolt carrier and charging handle out the rear, done. Takes about fifteen seconds and requires no tools. Cleaning is equally fast.

- Chris

LAK
April 15, 2006, 09:34 AM
Begging your pardon; with regard to bolt vs autoloader and cycling, I did omit the recoil recovery factor. This will be the equivalent same, or as near as makes no practical difference, with rifles in similar classes. The recoil using smallbores is almost insignificant, and I have no doubt that even among the most proficient a .223 autoloader is going to score faster repeat hits on a single target than anyone using a .223 bolt-action.

A good medium bore bolt-action can be manipulated - or cycled - within the time a sight picture can be regained using a similarly chambered autoloader. Certainly if you take "ten average shooters with an autoloader" and "ten shooters" who do not know how to properly manage a bolt-action the former will probably shoot faster repeats. But this is not an equipment issue, rather an operator issue.

Although there are always exceptions, there are not many people that will take a standard velocity and weight hunting type softpoint bullet from a .30 center mass and still be in a fight. Whether it be a 30-30 or a 30-06. The reference to hardball was merely to set a power class - eliminating "reduced recoil" loads or special cartridges with very light payloads that have significantly less recoil for their chambering.

As for the routine practice of two rifle shots per target, this is an error IMO. It has validity with pistol and smallbore rifle cartridges - but not with the mediums shooting regular hunting type softpoints. Someone ingrained with the automatic habit of shooting an extra round at a human target using a .30 class cartridge with regular softpoints is most likely going to be shooting at fresh air for the second round. Or experiencing a lag as they see the target drop like a sack of spuds - and then hesitate - when they should be getting on the second target or be ready for one.

Pumps, like levers, are very fast. There is no significant advantage using an autoloader chambered for a medium bore class cartridge over a pump or lever when engaging targets within the practical accuracy range of the cartridges used.

---------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Terrierman
April 15, 2006, 10:16 AM
This has been fairly interesting to follow if for no other reason than to assist in parsing who to listen to when it comes to opinions on the actual application of firearms in the real world. I have one question for the proponents of bolt, lever or pump guns over a semi-auto for any sort of defensive or law enforcement application other than sniper duty. What is the rate of fire from one of those types of firearms in the unhappy event that one of the shooters upper appendages becomes incapacitated? So far as I am concerned the only logical choice for patrol rifle duty (implying non-sporting use) is a magazine fed semi-automatic. After that it becomes a matter of if you like AR or some other platform. I learned on M-16 A1 in 1970 with the USMC. I also trained and qualified with m-14 in boot camp. I preferred the M-16 for several reasons that many have stated over and over again. I think it is still the superior platform for law enforcement or as a battle rifle today. I freely admit to holding a grudge against the AK and SKS types of rifles because of what they took from too many of my friends and cannot ever consider owning one. That pretty much leaves AR and Mini 14. I think the AR is superior to the Mini 14 ergonomically and is therefore the logical choice.

Chris Rhines
April 15, 2006, 10:37 AM
A good medium bore bolt-action can be manipulated - or cycled - within the time a sight picture can be regained using a similarly chambered autoloader. I have not found this to be the case. But again, instead of posting anecdotes and theories, why don't we post some data?

I wonder if I have any .303 ammo....

- Chris

LAK
April 15, 2006, 11:45 AM
TerriermanI have one question for the proponents of bolt, lever or pump guns over a semi-auto for any sort of defensive or law enforcement application other than sniper duty. What is the rate of fire from one of those types of firearms in the unhappy event that one of the shooters upper appendages becomes incapacitated?
This depends on many things, and the answers taking all things into account might fill a whole chapter of a book by a single writer concerning just one of the above action types.

My own opinion is that "rate of fire" is an overrated issue. More rounds per minute can be fired from a side-by-side double barrel autoeject shotgun by a competent operator than from a pump or autoloader. Does it matter? Not really IMO.

Completely mastering your weapon of choice along with a fighting mindset is a sounder basis than crunching such numbers.

Chris RhinesI have not found this to be the case. But again, instead of posting anecdotes and theories, why don't we post some data?
It is not a subject that anyone that I know of has even thought about "collecting data" over.

Certainly you could have someone time you between shots with your favorite medium bore selfloader rifle shooting your drill of choice. Whatever the average time is, that is your average recovery time between shots.

Bolt-action manipulation is instantaneous after the trigger is pulled, and the rifle does not leave the shoulder. It does not take but a fraction of a second, and is over and done with by the time the sight picture can be regained after bringing the muzzle down from recoil.

Like shooting a double-action revolver, there is some technique required, which needs to be mastered with consistancy. But it is nothing new.

--------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Terrierman
April 15, 2006, 12:36 PM
I think you missed my point. A shooter that becomes effectively a one armed shooter is still in the fight with a self loader. I just don't see how a bolt, lever, pump or break action double barrel is the functional equivalent if that possibility is considered.

ChristopherG
April 15, 2006, 12:49 PM
True. I've done a 3-gun stage working a levergun with only my weak hand. Not that it wasn't fun, but it did point out to me one potential weakness of the platform. I think my time on that stage (which I DID complete, by gum) was about equal to my total for the other 5 stages that day.

seeker_two
April 15, 2006, 02:11 PM
I think you missed my point. A shooter that becomes effectively a one armed shooter is still in the fight with a self loader. I just don't see how a bolt, lever, pump or break action double barrel is the functional equivalent if that possibility is considered.

...and clearing a jam in a self-loader one-handed is easier, too? :scrutiny:

I think, of the choices, the pump might come in at a close second for one-handed use. Remember the "Sarah Connor" reload in Terminator 2? But then, the "John Wayne" lever-action reloads are pretty quick, too.

If you practice your platform enough, speed and dexterity will come naturally... :cool:

Terrierman
April 15, 2006, 02:19 PM
Not necessarily easier but not harder either. Jams of course happen, but with a good rifle with good ammunition, they are rare. Self loader is still the way to go. You have to be joking about Sarah Connor and John Wayne reloads right?

Correia
April 15, 2006, 03:22 PM
LAK, you can keep up a higher rate of fire with a double barrel break open shotgun, than you can with a pump or auto, over an extended period. :D :D Hookay then. I would pay to see that on video.

Cosmo, we keep going back to comp stuff for a couple of reasons. The original thread was about "patrol" stuff, and 3gun is about as close as you will come to that for possible uses. And then I started to harp on it because some people seem to think that there is no significant speed difference between manual repeaters and semis, when there are those of us out there that live this stuff who know that that ain't the case.

John Wayne reloads work, kinda, but will quickly break your lever hinge. The gun isn't made to take that kind of weight coming down on the hinge. The Rifleman or Terminator spin the lever reloads just plain don't work, and the cartridge will usually fall out of the action.

355sigfan
April 15, 2006, 04:49 PM
IF you have a fail to fire one handed thats not so hard to clear. IF oyu get a double feed then its difficult. I was taught and do currenty teach my guys and gals to transition to their sidearm if their long gun (shotgun or rifle) goes down. Thats if it runs out of ammo or malfs. Once its safe then work on clearing the rifle. This of course does not apply if the threat is so far that trying to use a handgun would be futile. But I feel comfortable with using a handgun at 50 yards or more.
Pat

LAK
April 17, 2006, 05:47 AM
TerriermanI think you missed my point. A shooter that becomes effectively a one armed shooter is still in the fight with a self loader. I just don't see how a bolt, lever, pump or break action double barrel is the functional equivalent if that possibility is considered
If the shooter loses total use of one arm, he or she is not going to be particularly effective with any rifle. If he or she has some limited use of one arm, hand or both he or she can operate a bolt, lever or pump. It may be awkward and slower, but not impossible. Similar questions are often brought up in the "how to" catagory concerning other small arms - including selfloaders. One common one being for example, "how do you reload and cycle the slide of a 1911 pistol with one hand".

Correia,

It is quite simple. Rattling off five (or eight rounds) from a pump or autoloading shotgun can be impressively fast. But time someone loading a pump or autoloader magazine tube. In the time one takes to load one shell at a time into the tube of an autoloader or pump; one can fire, eject, load, fire, eject, load (etc) a good number from a double trigger, side by side autoejector.

I don't have it on video for you. But find some competent double ejector shooters and I am sure they'll show you how it's done.

-------------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

beerslurpy
April 17, 2006, 08:26 AM
Yeah, stay away from the Remington auto-rifles. Every guy I have ever seen with one had reliability problems.

eab
April 17, 2006, 09:28 AM
To those of you saying the rate of aimed rifle fire is just as accurate with a bolt/pump/lever vs. an semi auto if the user is up to snuff and all, I submit this video:

http://home.mchsi.com/~davidkoch/rifles/fal_enfield.avi

Posted here on this forum some time ago. In it they have two British Tommies go at it with aimed rifle fire. One using an Enfield, the other the newly adopted Fal. The Fal gets its shots down range faster, and the Tommie working the bolt on that Enfield is no slouch either.


My 2 cents for what its worth.

(Edited for grammar and spelling)

Correia
April 17, 2006, 10:46 AM
LAK, sorry dude. You really need to get out to a match. Most of us load multiple shotgun shells at a time into an autoloader or pump. I can do four in under 3 seconds, and I'm not that good. I keep telling you, there is a group of shooters out there who've made going super fast a science. That is what we do. So we tend to know a little bit about it.

ghost squire
April 17, 2006, 12:40 PM
eab, thanks for posting that video! Very cool.

As Cosmoline points out, a bolt-action can be manipulated as fast or faster than most autoloaders can cycle

LOL no. Most semi autoloaders cycle at around 700-900 RPM. As to aimed fire, unless you can acquire targets from 5-200 yards and track them while cycling the bolt, without having to adjust aim after finishing cycling the bolt, then no to that as well. If you can track a running man at 100 yards while cycling the bolt then I apologize.

seeker_two
April 17, 2006, 01:27 PM
Remember the "Sarah Connor" reload in Terminator 2?

To clarify, the "Sarah Connor reload" is when she operated the pump shotgun one-handed in T2. Not Ah-nolds levergun... ;)

It can be done. Read the 7600 review here... (http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/ggps/5464/)

LAK
April 18, 2006, 05:32 AM
CorreiaYou really need to get out to a match. Most of us load multiple shotgun shells at a time into an autoloader or pump. I can do four in under 3 seconds, and I'm not that good. I keep telling you, there is a group of shooters out there who've made going super fast a science. That is what we do. So we tend to know a little bit about it.
And when you say "I can [load] four in under 3 three seconds" does that mean; "... timed from the moment of last round fired, including retrieving the shells from a belt, pouch or other carrier, to ready to fire" or "next round fired"? Please clarify.

I see it as an art as opposed to science. Certainly things that can be described, such as economy of motion and smoothness are what contribute to fast. These being two of the reasons a double trigger autoejector side-by-side is capable of being fast. I do not know whether autoejectors are permitted in SASS or other cowboy type events, but it would be interesting to mix them up.

Many folk do not know what is the correct way to use a bolt-action or shoot fast with a double - hence it has been a much neglected art. It is just not practiced by many people. The same could be said of revolvers, except it has been more fully written about, and there are some outstanding examples that get paid to do it.

-----------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Nematocyst
April 18, 2006, 05:44 AM
Most of us load multiple shotgun shells at a time into an autoloader or pump. I can do four in under 3 seconds, and I'm not that good. I keep telling you, there is a group of shooters out there who've made going super fast a science.<Eyes and ears perk up>

4 in under 3?
<does quick calculation & visualization>
Yeah, I can see that.

A science of super fast? I like it.
I'm betting $5 that there's some art there, too.
;) :cool:

This continues to be an interesting thread,
even in one of my busiest months in years.

Bump.
_________

Chris, thanks for the info re AR field stripping.
_________

Reading with interest,
even if slowly.

Nem

LAK
April 18, 2006, 05:46 AM
ghost squireMost semi autoloaders cycle at around 700-900 RPM.
I thought I cleared that point up earlier.
As to aimed fire, unless you can acquire targets from 5-200 yards and track them
All medium bore rifles involve some recovery of sight picture at each shot. Certainly there are some people who can minimize this somewhat, however if the recoil of medium bore selfloaders was not an issue in this regard, controlling them when in automatic fire would not be impractical.

I can not speak for anyone else, but I can not "aquire" and "track" targets any better with an autoloader than a good bolt-action. Shooting it is much easier with an autoloading smallbore. Me, personally, I have more confidence in bigger bullets, and prefer the bolt-action.

---------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Nematocyst
April 18, 2006, 06:00 AM
LAK,

Just to be sure I undestand your point, please clarify:

...if the recoil of medium bore selfloaders was not an issue in this regard, controlling them when in automatic fire would not be impractical.I'm reading that as, Since medium bore selfloaders have substantial recoil, controlling them {i.e., acquiring targets} is challenging to difficult [and thus high rates of fire may be somewhat wasteful of rnds].

Does that accurately represent your assertion?

If so, I think I agree.
___________

Still loving that pump idea.

Nem

LAK
April 18, 2006, 06:43 AM
Nematocyst-870,

That there is a sight picture recovery factor and lag with any medium bore rifle be it an autoloader or a bolt-action. Were this not so in the case of any medium bore autoloader, "fully" automatic fire with the medium bore autoloaders would not be as impractical as it is.

The idea that one can fire at, and "track", a moving target say out to 200 yards with an autoloader, but this can not be done with equal practicality with a bolt-action, bears some explaining.
I'm reading that as, Since medium bore selfloaders have substantial recoil, controlling them {i.e., acquiring targets} is challenging to difficult [and thus high rates of fire may be somewhat wasteful of rnds].
This applies as well; and one solid hit with a medium bore hunting type softpoint should put most targets out of action.

----------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Bartholomew Roberts
April 18, 2006, 09:39 AM
Why are we arguing about this still? Get a shot timer and go out to the range. Come back and report the times and course of fire here.

Correia
April 18, 2006, 10:59 AM
Actually LAK, the standard test drill for shotgun reloads is, from the buzzer, fire one, load 4, fire one. Anybody who can do this in under four is doing awesome.

There is plenty of art in this.

I've shot as many as 36 shots in a single 3gun stage. Shotgun reloading speed is what wins the shotgun stages.

And no, a double gun, auto-eject or not, can not keep up whatsoever.

Like Bart says, grab a timer. There is no reason to pontificate when you can actually just go shoot.

LAK
April 19, 2006, 05:04 AM
Like Bart says, grab a timer. There is no reason to pontificate when you can actually just go shoot
You have either miscontrued, or tried to turn this, into a personal claim on my part.

We should get something straight here, which should have been clear in the manner in which I brought it up. I did not claim what I personally could do with any particular arm - against anyone else with something different; only what the arms are mechanically capable of in the right hands.

A revolver can be fired faster than a selfloading pistol - not because "I can do it", but because it is a mechanical issue. Mr Miculek can as it happens, shoot one faster than anyone else. I can work a s-b-s 12 very quickly - but there are plenty faster than I.

I agree that the reloading is the key; but you still have not stated in precisely what manner the shells to be reloaded are kept to hand. I am interested to know whether this is on a looped belt, pouch - or are they laid out on a bench?

Some people can for instance hold two shells between the supporting fingers for the first reload. But four? Likewise pulling two shells from a looped belt at one time is very feasible. Since a double 12 is reloaded and fired in twos this is one of the reasons it can fired so quickly.

-----------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Correia
April 19, 2006, 10:58 AM
I never said, nor thought, that you were saying you could do these feats. However what I am telling you, is that the best shooters in the world, who compete for money, some of who do this stuff for a living, disagree with you on every count. To the people who have winning as everything, and do nothing but train, experiment, and shoot, they disagree with you about equipment.

On the shotgun reloading, it isn't from the bench at all. Usually we have to be moving, sometimes in really awkward positions. I load from a bandolier around my chest. If your hands are big enough you grasp 4 shells, and pull them off at one time. Other guys use rigs that hold a row of shells horizontally on their belt. Others load off of side saddles, butt cuffs, or even shell holders on their wrists.

And for the record, Jerry Mickulek is the world's fastest revolver shooter. When he competes he uses a 1911. :)

seeker_two
April 19, 2006, 03:18 PM
And for the record, Jerry Mickulek is the world's fastest revolver shooter. When he competes he uses a 1911.

The HECK he does...

http://www.uspsa.org/press/Jerry_Miculek_grab_thumb.jpg

Custom S&W 627 in .38Super or 625 .45ACP (http://www.uspsa.org/press/Jerry_Miculek_grab.jpg)(whatever he's in the mood for... :cool: )

Now, he does use an AR for 3-gun matches--usually a DPMS...

Titus
April 19, 2006, 03:37 PM
I love the clip of him with the pump shotgun on that old Shooting USA!

mohican
April 19, 2006, 03:57 PM
Cosmoline

I know the cartridge is a little bigger than you are looking for, but how about
the Steyr m95 carbine (straight pull bolt) in 8X56R?

ChristopherG
April 19, 2006, 04:07 PM
The great Mr. Miculek competes with a revolver at wheelgun events, when shooting in wheelgun categories, and in steel shoots. When he competes in (and wins!) 3-gun matches, he uses a 1911.

Correia
April 19, 2006, 04:28 PM
Chris is right. I've shot in some of the same matches as Jerry M. (I'm usually 225 places or so behind whatever he comes in at) :p And when he shoots 3gun competition he shoots a 1911.

Eleven Mike
April 19, 2006, 07:55 PM
Careful, you AR-heads. You're gonna make us old-fashioned guys cry.

Cosmoline
April 20, 2006, 12:00 AM
I know the cartridge is a little bigger than you are looking for, but how about the Steyr m95 carbine (straight pull bolt) in 8X56R?

I'd say it's part of the historical "patrol rifle" class, since the cut down models were in fact used by Austrian police during the period. But I think the loads would have to be toned down to .308 levels. Some of that surplus is downright scary.

LAK
April 20, 2006, 06:12 AM
CorreiaI never said, nor thought, that you were saying you could do these feats.
That's uh, not quite what this statement indicates ....
Like Bart says, grab a timer. There is no reason to pontificate when you can actually just go shoot
But I am glad we got that straight all the same ;)
However what I am telling you, is that the best shooters in the world, who compete for money, some of who do this stuff for a living, disagree with you on every count.
Pehaps what many use in competition. But what Mr Miculek uses in competition does not equate to "a 1911 shoots faster than a revolver".

And it follows that just because many or most people in competition use this type of weapon or another does not necessarily in and of itself mean that those particular arms can do something another can not do or surpass on a particular point.

I should point out that I do not disparage competition to the point where I would say that much of it has no merit in the practical world, but that competition is not the last word in practical shooting.

What Miculek uses in competition as opposed to what he can do with something else proves that point.
On the shotgun reloading, it isn't from the bench at all. Usually we have to be moving, sometimes in really awkward positions. I load from a bandolier around my chest. If your hands are big enough you grasp 4 shells, and pull them off at one time. Other guys use rigs that hold a row of shells horizontally on their belt. Others load off of side saddles, butt cuffs, or even shell holders on their wrists.
Thanks; that is a crucial issue when relating any kind of drill to the practical world.

-----------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Bartholomew Roberts
April 20, 2006, 11:44 AM
Does it matter what a firearm is mechanically capable of if less than 1% of the population is even capable of appreciating that difference? From a practical perspective, semi-autos outrun bolts for a very good reason. The Army just moved to a semi-auto sniper rifle and cited speed of the next shot as the major factor. If school-trained snipers find a semi-auto faster than a bolt, then it doesn't matter whether a bolt is mechanically capable of being faster (and I disagree even with that premise).

mustanger98
April 20, 2006, 12:30 PM
I sure am glad I opted to take a break from this thread.

Now that the sidearms have been introduced into this conflict of interests, I recall a few years ago that Bob Munden (on the old "American Shooter") did a comparison of the three types- 1911, S&W DA revolver, and his tricked out Colt's he normally shoots with. The timer showed that the old Colt SAA was fastest followed by the S&W DA. The 1911 was slowest just because of the time it took for the action to cycle. But you have to be able to shoot faster than the gun to notice. This is why I still think we all need to just run with what we each like and forget about this nonsense about competing just to show "how good" the AR-15 allegedly is.

roscoe
April 20, 2006, 01:02 PM
I would like to see him shoot a SAA faster than he does a double-action revolver. That must be quite a sight.

mustanger98
April 20, 2006, 01:47 PM
I would like to see him shoot a SAA faster than he does a double-action revolver. That must be quite a sight.

It was. But his ability to do it had a lot to do with the SAA's ability to be "double-fanned" as opposed to the DA revolver having to be either thumb-cocked or fired DA. That and his being so fast with a SA sixgun to begin with. Remember, he grew up shooting fast draw competition before going into exhibition shooting.

The Army just moved to a semi-auto sniper rifle and cited speed of the next shot as the major factor. If school-trained snipers find a semi-auto faster than a bolt, then it doesn't matter whether a bolt is mechanically capable of being faster.

So the Army snipers are getting away from "One Shot, One Kill" in favor of speed. This don't sound good for them at all. On the other hand, I recall the M1C and M1D sniper rifles... Garands... and the M24 which was a scoped M-14.

As for Jerry Miculek, although I've seen him competing on TV with a 1911, I do recall he made his reputation for speed with a DA revolver. But he's not the only one. Anybody here ever read Ed McGivern?

Correia
April 20, 2006, 01:47 PM
Rosco, I've seen Bob do it. He fan fires it that way. Hammer is cocked. Left hand is hovering above gun. Trigger is pulled and held down. (no disconnecter) hammer is cocked and immediatly falls by thumb, finger 1, 2, 3, and pinkey in one sweep. Making a 6 round burst. It is a pretty neat trick.

Correia
April 20, 2006, 01:51 PM
Mustanger, yeah, what do those professional army snipers who want a semi-auto know about sniping. :scrutiny:

akodo
April 20, 2006, 03:21 PM
I really wish I had seen this thread at the start. I was trying to hold back until I read all the replies, but could not resist.

Patrol Rifle.

-a handy firearm to carry in addtion to a handgun for those times when a bit more is needed, be it by a police officer on duty or a citizen after a hurricane, riot, or other difficulty.

-A light, short, fast handling rifle, good for close work, and capable of delivering accuate distance fire.

-chambered in a round more potent than the traditional pistol calibers, including intermediate rifle rounds, and the lightest true rifle rounds. It needs to be able to defeat barriers that a standard pistol cannot, yet recoil softly enough for easy use by even the smallest, gun novice person, male or female

-Capacity requirement minimum 5 shots, no maximum, but must be able to accept lower capacity magazines for situations where a big 30 rounder is a.)too bulky, b.)not legally available, c.)political/public perception factor

-is NOT an assault rifle and NOT an assault weapon (semi-auto version of assault rifle)

Why is 'not an assault rifle or assault weapon' part of the definition? Well, there have been times when the average citizen could not purchase said assault weapon, or must purchase neutered versions. Back before the federal ban expired, I don't think an AR-15 with a 10 round magazine was superior enough to a lever action 44 mag or an SKS or a whole handful of firearms to justify it's greater cost. Some states and cities still have their own version of the assault weapon ban in place, or it could simply be due to public perception an 'evil black assault rifle' is undesirable.

ghost squire
April 20, 2006, 04:03 PM
What new semi are Army snipers using? Is it an AR-15 derivative? Cause I know the Marine Scout Snipers just got a new bolt rifle.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 20, 2006, 04:16 PM
The Army recently announced that Knights SR-25 won the contract for the SASS (Semi-Auto Sniper System) and USSOCOM is reportedly going with it as well. This system will not be replacing all bolt guns; but is being procured based on experiences in Iraq where ample targets and brief exposure times for those targets in an urban environment have led the Army to determine that a semi-auto would be more effective for that specific role.

ghost squire
April 20, 2006, 04:25 PM
It's a good idea, I've seen that video of a Blackwater sniper using up like 10 magazines sniping with his RAS equipped AR. And a 7.62 would have done a lot better at the ranges he was shooting at...

I wonder why they went with this over an M14 though.

benEzra
April 20, 2006, 04:42 PM
-is NOT an assault rifle and NOT an assault weapon (semi-auto version of assault rifle)

Why is 'not an assault rifle or assault weapon' part of the definition? Well, there have been times when the average citizen could not purchase said assault weapon, or must purchase neutered versions.

Back before the federal ban expired, I don't think an AR-15 with a 10 round magazine was superior enough to a lever action 44 mag or an SKS or a whole handful of firearms to justify it's greater cost.
AR-15 magazines weren't affected at all by the 1994 Federal AWB, since most AR-15 mags on the planet were manufactured before September 1994 and are therefore completely exempt. AK mags were actually cheaper during the ban than they are now.

The AWB mainly jacked up the prices of handgun magazines, not rifle mags.

Some states and cities still have their own version of the assault weapon ban in place, or it could simply be due to public perception an 'evil black assault rifle' is undesirable.
True, but I don't think writing that into the definition of "patrol rifle" makes much sense, considering that most police patrol rifles are AR-15's.

There have been several articles on patrol rifles (their term) for regular rank-and-file police officers in Police Marksman over the years, and nearly every one endorses the civilian AR-15 as THE best choice.

Cosmoline
April 20, 2006, 04:55 PM
But the AR has a near-monopoly on the class right now, at least in the US. I've heard this is in part because of federal purchasing assistance, though I cannot confirm it. Certainly, it's questionable whether the officers have had any experience with alternatives. You even see patrolmen and LEO's in rural Alaska toting AR-15's, which is downright absurd.

But all of this debate is really beside the point. I'm not trying to decide which carbine in the class is *best.* We could be at that all year and never come to an agreement. I'm just trying to identify the class as a matter of taxonomy and history. As I indicated in the first post, these seem to be a type of rifle/carbine that's been around since at least the 1890's yet they literally fall through the cracks between existing definitions of "rifles" "short rifles" and "carbines."

mustanger98
April 20, 2006, 05:10 PM
Correia: Mustanger, yeah, what do those professional army snipers who want a semi-auto know about sniping.

That, yet again, is not what I said. I said based on the sniper's deal about "one shot, one kill", it seems like regression to say a sniper needs what amounts to "rapid fire" capability. More than one shot- two, three, four rounds fired close together- gives the enemy a better chance to locate the sniper. Notice that I recall the USMC issuing the scoped version of the M-14 which was used by Gunny Hathcock after the Winchester M70. Lest anyone should think I'm down on the Army, I'm not. I have grandparents, cousins, and friends who have served in one branch or the other at different times from WW2 on up.

But all of this debate is really beside the point. I'm not trying to decide which carbine in the class is *best.* We could be at that all year and never come to an agreement. I'm just trying to identify the class as a matter of taxonomy and history. As I indicated in the first post, these seem to be a type of rifle/carbine that's been around since at least the 1890's yet they literally fall through the cracks between existing definitions of "rifles" "short rifles" and "carbines."

Yeah. That about says it. Now why did the AR snobs have to jump all over it and try to tell us we're wrong? Sounds like a bunch of mall ninjas trying to say "if you have anything but a AR you're stupid". It gets old fast.

ghost squire
April 20, 2006, 05:27 PM
But the AR has a near-monopoly on the class right now

Could there be a more reasonable explanation for that, for example, its a good gun.

That, yet again, is not what I said. I said based on the sniper's deal about "one shot, one kill", it seems like regression to say a sniper needs what amounts to "rapid fire" capability. More than one shot- two, three, four rounds fired close together- gives the enemy a better chance to locate the sniper. Notice that I recall the USMC issuing the scoped version of the M-14 which was used by Gunny Hathcock after the Winchester M70.

You have a dreamland version of what combat in Iraq is like. It's more like, you see a ragtag band of 50 hostile Iraqis with AK's headed towards a rifle squad of friendlies. You proceed to shoot fish in a barrel. Veteran's correct me if I'm wrong. There are no officers, there are no machine gunners, just a bunch of dusty guys with AK's that you have to kill as quickly as possible.

There is no "detecting". They are 2 or 3 hundred yards away and you are up on a roof behind cover, giving them a snowball's chance in hell of hitting you...

Calmly but as quickly as possible you have to work to get as many of them as possible before they disperse and dissapear into the civilian population, causing untold problems.

Since they don't have any real kind of firepower to get rid of snipers, its not like the Soviets in WW2, where they had to shoot once then move because the Germans would bring a tank shell down on them.

Also, suicide bombers. You want as fast a follow up shot as possible, in case you miss but more because they sometimes like to work in pairs or larger groups.

akodo
April 20, 2006, 05:28 PM
yes, during the assault weapon ban, you could still get preban mags pretty easily. That is irrelevant, because some places even the neutered clones were illegal. In some countries, autoloaders are flat out not permitted, but this concept of a handy, fast, low recoil, easy to carry rifle still applies even there.

also, as mentioned, there can be political and perception factors. Face it, if you do use an AR-15 type weapon, firing a single shot for self defence, the media is going to write it up as 'machinegun' etc etc. Now, you use a cz 527 in .223 or a winchester 30-30, that is going to be much lessened. Same for which you want the prosecutor to hold up in court, an AR-15 clone, that he conveniently places a drum magazine on, or a more conventional arm.

You guys are right that the AR-15, AK, G33, FN-CAL, etc etc are all good at this same task. However, it can be useful to say "if you don't want X, what else can fill the same roll". In some ways it is like a vegetarian talking about protien sources. Doesn't matter how much you scream 'JUST EAT MEAT' it is out for them, hence their listing of chickpeas, kidney beans, peanuts, tofu and the like are still releveant, even in the face of meat

Correia
April 20, 2006, 05:29 PM
Not snobbery at all. I don't even currently own a personal AR15. (and I own a gunstore). Just that Cosmo picked a term that is already in use, and 95% of the people who were already using that term were already using an AR15.

My snobbery was more against bolt actions vs. semis than an AR vs. anything.

I work with US army snipers. The guy that teaches our precision marksmanship class has been in Army SF from Vietnam until Afghanistan. He has nothing against the SR-25 type rifles, and I'm pretty sure, and all of the sniper match trophys on the wall seem to suggest that he might know what he is talking about.

In a situation with multiple targets, multiple shots might be needed quickly. That's it. And the guys that are out there doing this stuff want a semi auto. I don't know if Knights is going to get the contract because there has been some serious allegations about the procurement contract. DPMS, Armalite, and even Remington all had semi-auto .308 guns in the competition.

Why the SR-25/AR10 instead of the M14? Ease of maintenance for an accurate gun. There are no bedding issues, and that is really the primary concern. The SR-25 is a 1/2 MOA gun and maintains like the standard infantry gun.

Snipers are trained and smart. They can fire single shots to stay undetected, (all of the competitors for the new sniper rifle took sound suppresors also, most of them using OpsInc) but when given a target rich environment, they are going to take advantage of it.

Cosmoline
April 20, 2006, 05:35 PM
I don't think the patrol format AR-15 is a "bad gun," but I don't think it's the final word in the class. For one thing, it's really nothing more than the latest in a long line of military rifles being modified for use by police and civilians by making it shorter. But I don't think it's a perfect fit. The .223, when loaded with expanding rounds, is acceptable for firearms in this class. But it's also effective over a fairly narrow window. A Marlin 1894 in .44 Magnum would be a far better choice as a patrol rifle for LEO's in this state, for example. As it is they have to scrounge around for a slug gun or a private hunting rifle when there's a problem bear. The complete and total inadequacy of the .223 against large game was demonstrated recently when the LEO's (in suburban Colordao IIRC) tried to bring down several bison with AR's. The results were sickening, as the officers sprayed rounds wildly at the poor beasts in a vain effort to kill them quickly.

I would not exclude the AR from the class. But I'd say it's just one of many tools within this group that can be selected. Why not expand the options a little bit?

ghost squire
April 20, 2006, 05:36 PM
Why the SR-25/AR10 instead of the M14? Ease of maintenance for an accurate gun. There are no bedding issues, and that is really the primary concern. The SR-25 is a 1/2 MOA gun and maintains like the standard infantry gun.

Makes sense.

mustanger98
April 20, 2006, 08:30 PM
ghost squire, I am offended by your assumption that I have a dreamland version of Iraq in mind. I did not specifically mention Iraq; you did. And it is a historical fact that snipers have mostly operated under the theory that you remain undetected and make one-shot kills. That said, I can see taking on 40 or 50 insurgents as fast as possible from an elevated position. But I hadn't previously thought of that as "sniping", which it certainly falls under, so much as smart tactics. We were simply thinking of different situations and I'm willing to consider this one a misunderstanding if you are. The deal you're talking about looks to me like a real good time and place to have an M-14, but if the higher-ups want a different platform, whatever. I hope it works very well for the guys using them.

Also, suicide bombers. You want as fast a follow up shot as possible, in case you miss but more because they sometimes like to work in pairs or larger groups.

This one presents another set of problems. The biggest problem I see is seeing which one(s) the suicide bombers are to be able to take them out in time. As far as shoot/no-shoot goes, considering that a suicide bombing requires a crowd, that's probably non-existant luxury regardless of who or what's behind them because they're fixing to tear up a whole lot more than the sniper will with a one-shot kill in front of an uncertain background. Not that taking out a terrorist will make shooting a bystander in the process feel any better, but the main point being that more bystanders weren't victims.

Eleven Mike
April 20, 2006, 08:49 PM
There is only one way to settle this, and you are all avoiding it. Cowards.

Bolt-Nuts face off against Mattel Toy fans. Live ammo, and any gear the player can carry. A body of judges will be selected to determine a tract of wilderness suitable for the contest and to interpret the results. The exercise will terminate at the whim of the judges, or when all players have been eliminated by death or incapacitation.

Threatening or harming judges will be punished by slow and agonizing torture, including the amputation of both trigger fingers. Calling in airstrikes or other outside help will be similarly discouraged.

Post your judicial nominations now. Judges will approve all team members.

ghost squire
April 20, 2006, 09:37 PM
I'm willing to consider this one a misunderstanding if you are.

Fair enough. :)

355sigfan
April 21, 2006, 05:47 AM
QUOTE
A Marlin 1894 in .44 Magnum would be a far better choice as a patrol rifle for LEO's in this state, for example. As it is they have to scrounge around for a slug gun or a private hunting rifle when there's a problem bear.
END QUOTE

Sorry thats laughable and I am glad I make the decisons about what our guys carry and not you. The 44 mag lever gun is underpowered for big bears and over peneatrative in homes and in people. In others words it sucks at everything. The 223 is the best combat gun we have it works for active shooters to barricaded gun men. The 870 loaded with slugs in the bear medicine.
Pat

355sigfan
April 21, 2006, 05:49 AM
Also forgot to add a 223 can bring down large animals in a pinch. I know of one Trooper who killed a chargeing black bear with his AR. As for other rifles in the class if their not semi auto their obsolete for the patrol rifle role. Pure and simple. There is a reason that soldiers and cops generally don't carry bolts and levers anymore. Heck with your logic we could still carry muzzle loaders.
Pat

355sigfan
April 21, 2006, 06:03 AM
QUOTE
But the AR has a near-monopoly on the class right now, at least in the US. I've heard this is in part because of federal purchasing assistance, though I cannot confirm it. Certainly, it's questionable whether the officers have had any experience with alternatives. You even see patrolmen and LEO's in rural Alaska toting AR-15's, which is downright absurd.
END QUOTE

I have worked in rural alaska as a cop for the last 7 years now. I can tell you from experience that the AR15 and simular weapons are great tools for rural cops and all cops for that matter. And no federal assistance is not getting us AR's with the exception of about 100 M16 A1's the Troopers got about 8 years ago. All the rest are newly purchased guns at the departments or officers expense. Nearly all cops in rural areas have experience with bolt guns and lever guns for hunting. But we also know such weapons are woefully obsolete and outclassed by semi autos in gun fights.

You seem to think animals are are biggest threat. Thats not the case criminals are. The Ar and its class of weapons is the best at taking out criminals from 0 to 300 yards with minimal colateral damage and liability concerns. For the rare time a bear or a moose is a problem a 12 gauge loaded with slugs will do nicely and far better than a lever action pistol caliber carbine.

I have been in some tight spots and I am very glad that I have had an AR15 with me. So please do yourself a favor don't talk about subjects (rural Alaskan law enforcement or law enforcement in general) until your educate yourself.
Pat

Cosmoline
April 21, 2006, 04:22 PM
How many gunfights are there around here, honestly? I've never seen or read of an encounter where rural LEO's in this state have had to lay down hundreds of rounds. Indeed 99.9999999% of the time no shots are fired. On the other hand, I have seen local APD and troopers totally unable to deal with problem animals. One angry bull moose was in the parking lot of the midtown McDonalds a few years back, and all the APD could do was sit in their car a ways back and hope it didn't stomp anyone. Every damn village I"ve been to in the YK delta has had problem griz roaming around, and it's the locals who have to deal with the problem. State troopers are pretty much useless. It's just as well the citizens here are better armed than the cops and can deal with these problems themselves. Our cops increasingly appear to think they're working in southern California, or at least they want to look as cool and tactical as the SWAT boys down there.

You obviously have a lot of time and status invested in the AR platform. You helped set up the training program utilizing them. But you cannot honestly tell me that no Alaskan LEO's ever have to deal with out of control or wounded animals. Large, furry animals who need more than a .223 or .40. I've seen far more of those than I have of these armed gangs you seem to think are roaming the state. Yes, some units still keep a slug gun handy. Bless them. But I've seen more and more LEO's around here packing the tacti-cool AR's.

Your position is a perfect example of AR-itis. You've convinced yourselves that the AR is the ONLY rifle a patrolman can have. Any other is totally inadequate. When was the last time one was even used to kill a suspect in a shootout? Indeed, when was the last major shootout here? You cited the Bethel slayings as one reason the Bethel PD got tactical. The cops could not have done squat about ANY of it no matter how many AR's and black vests you issued them. A simple levergun in the administration office, OTOH, would have resolved the situation without a question. As it was Edwards only had what witnesses described as a plastic baseball bat. Against Ramsey's shotgun it was a short and one-sided confrontation. Had Edwards had a firearm of his own in the office, chances are he could have gotten a clean shot. Ramsey was suicidal and wandering the halls shooting randomly, paying little attention to staying concealed. Indeed he was hoping someone would kill him. He planned on killing himself but didn't have the guts to go through with it. But all of this took place before the cops--tacticool or not--could have done squat about it.

355sigfan
April 21, 2006, 04:38 PM
Cosmo don't know if your ignoring the fact I said we use 870 with slugs for animals. APD issues 870's and they have not had problems dealing with moose I know several APD officers. My personal Vang Comped 870 rides in my patrol car loaded with breneke slugs for such animal calls which are few and far between. I have delt with far more man with a gun calls than I have animal calls. Thats where the AR15 shines. Use the right tool for the job. Ar15's for human threats and Shotguns loaded with slugs for animal calls.

And there are more and more gunfights erupting all over Alaska. Its not the quite state it used to be. Like I said Bethel had the first school shooting. I have lost one friend at another department to gunfire. So again I say your totally ignorant when it comes to the needs of law enforcement and it shows in your comments. Thats not an insult but rather a statement of fact. You may know about hunting and other firearms issues but when it comes to LEO firearm needs your knowledge is totally lacking.
Pat

Cosmoline
April 21, 2006, 04:41 PM
Specific examples where only an AR would have been a sufficient patrol rifle, please. Otherwise you're just tossing the blue line at me. Which is actually increasingly typical of the attitude in these parts. It's the same "we're at war and you're just a civilian" mentality that's been spreading like a virus in the lower 48. That attititude will lead to far more tragedies than any number of AR's could prevent. Indeed the pattern I'm seeing is a law enforcment establishment increasingly alien to this state, with less and less trust between "us" and "them." Not good. Not good at all. The agencies would be well advised to spend less time and money worrying about qualifying with AR's and more effort hiring locals instead of having to import LEO's from outside. Like the idiot kid in the trooper uniform who pulled me over on a run out to Willow. I was only going 45, which he figured must mean I was on drugs or a terrorist of some kind. I had to explain to him that I was hauling 150 gallons of water in the back, a concept HE HAD NEVER HEARD OF! Imagine that. A trooper doing patrols north of Wasilla who'd never heard of hauling water.

Or the time I skidded off into the ditch on some ice. Some locals came by immediately to help me out of the ditch, but it was sad to hear them say they had to run off before any troopers drove by.

355sigfan
April 21, 2006, 04:44 PM
Cosmo every possible gun fight situation would give the edge to the AR over the guns you mention. Agian your not armed for this mental debate. Get some knowledge and come back to the table.
Pat

Cosmoline
April 21, 2006, 05:06 PM
You're still not willing or able to give me specifics. What gun fights? Where? When? Why specifically did the AR give the officer a critical advantage over other options? What specifically did it allow the officers to do that they could not have done with another rifle in the class or a shotgun?

From what I understand about your position, part of your job involves boosting and supporting the AR's you've built at least part of your career around. You're an AR Armorer! So surely you must be able to give me more details.

GTSteve03
April 21, 2006, 05:31 PM
Don't bother, Cosmo. 355sigfan is the only one in this room professional enough to use an AR15. :rolleyes:

ghost squire
April 21, 2006, 05:35 PM
Cosmo every possible gun fight situation would give the edge to the AR over the guns you mention.

Thats a tad sweeping... I would much prefer a .30 caliber bolt gun if the person was inside a car or behind cover, or at 200+ yards. I don't know if I would give up the versatility of the AR vs the bolt gun for that if I were a police officer, but if I knew thats what was going to happen and I had the choice between the two I'm picking bolt gun.

Cosmoline
April 21, 2006, 05:42 PM
And mind, I'm not trying to pick on the AR-15 in this thread. It's fine for what it is. And I suspect the AR-15 is going to be the best choice for getting high scores on drills designed for the AR-15. But what does that tell us? You could just as easily create a course requiring such things as topping off the magazine that would put a levergun ahead.

So I do take issue with the notion that the AR is the end-all and be-all of the patrol rifle concept. I'm just hoping to open some minds about the class of rifles and get some thought into what can be done to make it better. It's high time IMHO, since for the most part people haven't even been thinking about these rifles as part of the same general type before.

shootinstudent
April 21, 2006, 05:46 PM
So I do take issue with the notion that the AR is the end-all and be-all of the patrol rifle concept. I'm just hoping to open some minds about the class of rifles and get some thought into what can be done to make it better. It's high time IMHO, since for the most part people haven't even been thinking about these rifles as part of the same general type before.

I'm curious: if you could custom design a rifle from the ground up to be the typical Patrol Rifle, what would it be like?

Cosmoline
April 21, 2006, 05:53 PM
I don't know at this point, but it's something to start thinking about. The first step is to recognize that the class exists "in the wild" so to speak. And to note the general parameters of the class as far as length, weight, and cartridge class. It may be that there is no one ultimate patrol rifle. Indeed having an array of potential choices allows the class to fit a wide range of scenarios.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 21, 2006, 06:17 PM
It's fine for what it is. And I suspect the AR-15 is going to be the best choice for getting high scores on drills designed for the AR-15. But what does that tell us? You could just as easily create a course requiring such things as topping off the magazine that would put a levergun ahead.

Do you think that is a fair characterization? As far as I can tell, neither high power,Rifle IPSC nor 3-gun was created with the AR15 in mind; but the AR15 dominates all three sports. You say you hope to open some minds; but you don't appear to be very open minded about accepting that the AR does appear to be the best weapon for many of these tasks.

So I do take issue with the notion that the AR is the end-all and be-all of the patrol rifle concept. I'm just hoping to open some minds about the class of rifles and get some thought into what can be done to make it better. It's high time IMHO, since for the most part people haven't even been thinking about these rifles as part of the same general type before.

I'd agree that there is kind of an evolutionary chain in the rifles you discussed that is missed by many; but I think that one point there is that the link IS an evolutionary one. That doesn't mean that the older rifles would be bad or unsuitable for the job, simply that they no longer represent the top of chain. Another thing to keep in mind about evolution is that many people wrongly interpret it as "survival of the fittest" when what Darwin said was that it was "survival of those best adapted to their environment". The environment for patrol rifles has changed over the years and rifles have changed with them; but that doesn't necessarily mean that the AR is the end-all, be-all - just that it is best adapted to the current environment.
__________________
"Do the interns get Glocks?"

CarbineKid
April 21, 2006, 06:28 PM
I'm curious: if you could custom design a rifle from the ground up to be the typical Patrol Rifle, what would it be like?
How about a M-1 carbine chambered for the 5.56 round?

Cosmoline
April 21, 2006, 06:33 PM
The AR itself is an old rifle, so if you're going to use an "evolutionary" argument many other rifles will have ousted it over the past sixty years. And indeed in some respects, particularly its odd gas system, they have. But I think it's a mistake to view each new rifle as an evolutionary improvement over prior designs. In reality, the last great evolutionary leaps came in the 1890's with the introduction of smokeless powder. Everything since then has been mere refinement. So the AR is a refinement of the same ideas that led to the Winchester '94. But is it actually more useful as a patrol rifle in practice? It has some advantages, and some disadvantages. The thing about engineering refinements is you have to take from one thing to add to another. It's always a question of balance. More power = more recoil. A gas system lets you increase the rate of fire, but it also puts inherent limitations on the kind of rounds you can feed and fire. The more pipes you put in, the easier it is for them to get stopped up. And no matter how you flip them around or how fancy you make them look, ALL smokeless powder cartridge firearms are dealing with the same basic elements and have to deal with the same basic issues. So there's far less evolutionary difference between a modern AR and a modern Marlin levergun than you seem to be assuming. It's mainly a question of what tradeoffs you want to make to acheieve a given result.

But I grant you if we were talking about rifles for COMPETITION SHOOTING, at least outside of Cowboy action, the AR seems to have some real advantages. It can be extremely accurate, for one thing. But we're not talking about getting high scores here. This is a discussion of rifles for rough field use.

ghost squire
April 21, 2006, 06:41 PM
If you're not going to count the self loading rifle as a great evolutionary step, at least include machineguns in there.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 21, 2006, 07:03 PM
First, evolution doesn't mean improvement - it just means better adapted to the environment. History is replete with ideas and animals that were perfectly adapted to one environment and died off when that environment changed. A modern urban environment is one that the AR15 is well adapted to and that older rifles developed in a different environment can compete in; but not at the same level. I think that is all anyone is really saying.

This is a discussion of rifles for rough field use.

The AR15 has certainly seen its share of rough field use; but I don't think you meant this to be an AR15 v. ???? thread. If I read your initial post right, you were just noting that the role filled by the AR15 now had been around for a long time and had been filled by a variety of rifles and were trying to determine some common characteristics?

Eleven Mike
April 21, 2006, 08:03 PM
You could just as easily create a course requiring such things as topping off the magazine that would put a levergun ahead. Topping off a tube mag is faster than dropping and switching box mags? I guess if you were in dire need of ammo.

If you're not going to count the self loading rifle as a great evolutionary step, at least include machineguns in there. According to Wikipedia, which is never, ever wrong, the Maxim was invented in 1885 and the first smokeless powder, Poudre B, was developed in 1886.

LAK
April 21, 2006, 08:48 PM
Bartholomew RobertsDoes it matter what a firearm is mechanically capable of if less than 1% of the population is even capable of appreciating that difference? From a practical perspective, semi-autos outrun bolts for a very good reason.
There is a direct relationship between practical capability and mechanical capability. The operator can make a difference either way - Mr Miculek being a prime example. But let's not confuse average operator with fastest, or most overall capable.
The Army just moved to a semi-auto sniper rifle and cited speed of the next shot as the major factor.
So? The Army has chopped and changed from one thing to another for more than a hundred years. The Army adopted a modification of the M14 when the Marines stuck with a bolt as a dedicated sniper during the Vietnam war. Let me guess, the Marine Corp was "behind the curve" at the time?

The current move neither surprizes me nor alters a sound position. One of the first rules of sniping is that you do not fire more than one shot, maybe two, unless you are in a position of invulnerability. This has been universal in sniper training and on the battlefield.

If current Army snipers operating in limited zones can fire with impunity against targets incapable of neutralizing them once detected, all well and good. But that does not change what has been sound doctrine for sniping in general over a hundred years.
If school-trained snipers find a semi-auto faster than a bolt, then it doesn't matter whether a bolt is mechanically capable of being faster (and I disagree even with that premise).
School-trained snipers are not new, and what the Army is doing now, as in the past, is not necessarily a good general policy and the last word warranting a complete change.

As to a bolt being mechanically faster; again, I thought we cleared that one up. I have used medium bore selfloaders and medium bore bolts - the recovery time is as near as makes no practical difference the same and during the recovery time a bolt can be worked sufficiently fast. I have used the smallbore M16 on a professional level, and others like the Mini-14, and as I have agreed they are another matter altogether when directly comparing to similarly chambered bolt-actions in shooting drills.

----------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

dm1333
April 21, 2006, 09:59 PM
I've been away for over two weeks and some of the posts here are giving me a headache! What I really want to know is how well the 527 has been shooting for you? I haven't found a shop around here yet that is quoting anything less than MSRP but once my motorcycle is up and running I think I really need another rifle.

Cosmoline
April 21, 2006, 11:02 PM
The 527 is a real hoot. I haven't worked up any standard handloads for it, so I don't know what its peak accuracy is. I'll be happy with 2 MOA. Mostly I've been experimenting with very light plinkers and a new 172-180 grain range of bullets. I've posted about these in the handloading forum. The end results were satisfactory, and show that the x39 can equal the 30-30 with heavy bullets. Indeed, I very much doubt any .30-30 of equal size (such as a Spikehorn) could beat the 527 in any range of loads. Though admittedly a .30-30 bolt action with a 22" barrel using handloads can reach .308 levels.

The carbine itself is very handy. It's well balanced and shoots easily off hand or kneeling. I added a Blackhawk cheek pad/ammo pouch and that's helped make up for the undersized stock comb.

dm1333
April 22, 2006, 12:43 AM
How smooth is the action? I judge all bolts against my Lee Enfield, which is pretty damn smooth. I had a chance to hold a CZ-452 Lux and was impressed with the gun and that has made me really want the 527. I wanted to get another Enfield rechambered in 7.62x39 but I think that might get put aside for the CZ. I have spent the last 12 years in coastal WA, OR and CA and have not seen too many deer taken past 100 yards. I think that little gun with the right loads would be great for deer and pig.

Cosmoline
April 22, 2006, 01:32 AM
It rattles a bit like any good Mauser should, but locks up nicely and cycles very smoothly. What I like most about it is how it's truly a mini '98. Everything about it is shrunk down a notch, not just the length of the action. As a result it's extremely packable and easy to handle. It's also very fast. On par with an SMLE once you get the hang of it. It shoots like my 452.

benEzra
April 22, 2006, 01:20 PM
One attempt at definition/criteria, from 2003:

Sheppard W. Kelly, "The Patrol Rifle," Police Marksman, Jan/Feb 2003, pp. 38-40:

- functional reliability

- capable of one-shot incapacitation with peripheral hit

- reasonably compact

- have easily acquired sights

- capable of accepting auxiliary sight systems

- durable and easily maintained

- semi-automatic and magazine-fed

- able to place 10 sustained fire shots in an 8" circle at 200 yds.

One could quibble about the the realism of #2 with ANY rifle caliber, but I'm just quoting the article. He recommends AR-15 type rifles as the best patrol rifle.

Going back a bit more, there's Dick Fairburn, "So, You're Ready for a Rifle?" Police Marksman, May/June 1997, who also strongly recommends the basic, iron-sighted AR-15 as the best choice for the general officer, as a replacement for the traditional 12-gauge pump shotgun in the cruiser's trunk or overhead rack.

I have a number of other articles on patrol rifles from Police Marksman, and all tend to recommend the AR-15 on its merits, rather than on cost/training issues. I think it is indeed a good choice for the average officer, and a lot of departments seem to agree, based on the percentage who are using AR's in that role.

That's not to say that a lever-action, pump-action, or even a smooth bolt-action couldn't fit the category of "patrol rifle," but one certainly cannot define AR-15's and such out of the category since in the real word they dominate the category.

Cosmoline
April 22, 2006, 03:26 PM
I don't think anyone is trying to define the AR out of the category. The debate is whether the AR is the ONLY CHOICE, as a number of ARphiles seem to believe. It's certainly *A* choice, and it may be the best one in some circumstances. But it's clearly not the only choice, and not the best for all circumstances.

Also, the class of rifles goes beyond LEO use to include an array of personal truck guns and home defense carbines.

shootinstudent
April 23, 2006, 05:56 AM
I think compiling a good list of situations the patrol rifle will be called to handle will be a good way to start figuring out which rifle(s) will be best suited to the job.

I'm thinking of certain common features across the different action types, something like a making a "patrol package" for whichever handy-little rifle you have. Not sure what those features would be, of course...ghost ring sights, or a combo of more accurate and ghost ring sights (like the A2 setup) come to mind first.

For me, the ideal such gun is my Marlin .30-30...but I'm getting tempted to buy a new CZ after reading about all that Comsoline is doing with that 527. A nice little bolt gun in a medium caliber seems like a great idea, especially if I can find one with a stock that helps the gun to point naturally like my .30-30.

mustanger98
April 23, 2006, 02:13 PM
shootinstudent:
I'm thinking of certain common features across the different action types, something like a making a "patrol package" for whichever handy-little rifle you have. Not sure what those features would be, of course...ghost ring sights, or a combo of more accurate and ghost ring sights (like the A2 setup) come to mind first.

What I do... I like a small diameter target aperture sight for finer work, but if I need a ghostring in a hurry, I just unscrew the aperture and use the threaded hole. It looks just like the fuzzy ring of some ghostrings I've seen.

For me, the ideal such gun is my Marlin .30-30...but I'm getting tempted to buy a new CZ after reading about all that Comsoline is doing with that 527. A nice little bolt gun in a medium caliber seems like a great idea, especially if I can find one with a stock that helps the gun to point naturally like my .30-30.

Yeah. Much as I like my Enfield, I'm a levergunner too. I like Marlin and Winchester both- I know some people argue one's better than the other, but I don't happen to have a preference. My go to is this one '94 I have with the Lyman #2 tang sight because it generally fits me. If I need finer sights, I have a Williams foolproof that bolts right up to the side of the receiver and I know how to line it up in a hurry and adjust it finer from there. I'm liking the sound of Cosmoline's 527 too, for an intermediate caliber bolt, but for my preference of sights and what I do with any rifle, I got this old Remington 521-T which is .22LR. While I won't argue that a .22LR will do everything the bigger stuff will (because it won't), I'd still hate to get hit with it and I don't think anybody here will argue with that.

Cosmoline: Also, the class of rifles goes beyond LEO use to include an array of personal truck guns and home defense carbines.

As much as we've talked up bolts, this statement has "levergun" wrote all over it. I was just talking about my .30-30, but another carbine I like is a '94AE w/ 16" barrel in .45Colt (to match a Ruger sixgun) slung muzzle down on my right shoulder. I can about get it into action faster than my sixgun or 1911A1. Either Winchester can ride on my saddle or in my pickup. I just figure where I'm headed before I choose which rifle or carbine.

8x57mm
May 26, 2008, 08:56 PM
Cheap, indestructable, jam-proof, accurate... and will stop... well, most anything with one shot...

milsurp M48 with a 4X LER scope mounted scout-style at the rear sight position.

Now play nice!

s2brutus
May 26, 2008, 10:28 PM
How about this:

An M-1 Carbine chambered for the new round, .357 Maximum Rimless - or we could just call it the .357 Brutus for short.

:D

Cosmoline
May 26, 2008, 11:15 PM
Wow my own zombie thread come back to attack me.

MASTEROFMALICE
May 26, 2008, 11:19 PM
Wow my own zombie thread come back to attack me.


And it's still in perfect shape. Perhaps it was stored in cosmoline.

zxcvbob
May 26, 2008, 11:38 PM
Wow my own zombie thread come back to attack me.


You forgot to shoot it in the head. (been watching George Romero movies) ;)

sixgunner455
May 27, 2008, 01:06 AM
What's in YOUR head, Zombie?!

goon
May 27, 2008, 04:31 AM
double post :mad:

goon
May 27, 2008, 05:08 AM
I'm inclined to think that the lever action 30-30 would work about as well as anything else for this use.

As was already stated, it does have adequate power, holds "enough" ammo, is lightweight and quick handling, and pretty common to most areas.
It also has the benefit of being quite inexpensive compared to most choices - even with prices on everything going up I still see good used Marlin 30-30's for around $250. Nothing against the AR, but I have never seen an AR in that price range and I doubt I ever will. Add in magazines and there is just no comparison as far as price goes.
This may or may not be a consideration to a police department but it would certainly be a consideration to me. Point blank, I don't have $900 of disposable income for an AR. But I and most others could probably come up with $300 for a Marlin and a few boxes of ammo.
As an added advantage, there isn't any need to add a shotgun with slugs for stopping larger animals in most of the lower 48. The 5.56 seems to work about as well as anything else on human threats but the 30-30 has it outclassed if you need to shoot at anything larger or meaner than a medium sized deer.
I won't argue against the advantages of a semi-auto because I can't. They're true. An AR does hold more ammo, is at least as accurate as a lever action 30-30, and could probably deliver a quicker second shot for most shooters than a lever action. But the advantages of lever actions like cost and the added penetration if you need it are real too.

If it's not "fair" to exclude the merits of an AR, then it is also just as irrational to exclude anything that isn't semi auto without looking at the benefits that might be gained.

By the way - this is an old thread !
Might as well keep it alive...

benEzra
May 27, 2008, 09:13 AM
Also, high capacity is only needed if you're going to use the firearm for military-style suppressive fire or the sort of marsh-clearing they do in Iraq. For legal reasons these aren't really on the table for LEO's or civilians. You could have a patrol rifle with a high cap, but you wouldn't really need it.
I disagree, because an officer who grabs the rifle out of the roof rack on the fly to pursue a suspect/engage a situation will typically do so with only the ammunition in the magazine, as officers don't typically walk around with .223 mag carriers on their duty belts. That is doubly true of homeowners, unless you normally sleep in a tac-vest.

If an officer typically carries 30 to 45 rounds of 9mm/.40 on his/her person to cover contingencies, I think it is entirely reasonable to have 20 or 30 rounds available for the carbine; 5 to 15 could leave the officer with no reserve if things go south.

Cosmoline
May 27, 2008, 12:51 PM
Officers do walk around with multiple sidearm reloads though, which become superfluous if they have a patrol rifle.

Besides, if you have a proper long gun you don't need nearly as many rounds. And it's not as though LEO's are going to be laying down suppressive fire on some general area.

Frankly I think today's LEO is hugely overloaded with junk. They would do better with a carbine, a small optional sidearm and some extra rounds. Not 30 or 40 or 60. That's just dead weight.

EDIT: I've been pulled back in by the zombie, and it's eating my brains! Don't be surprized if I start replying to myself and debating myself, thereby creating a warp in the time/space whatzit and folding this dimension back in on itself like the worm ouroboros.

zxcvbob
May 27, 2008, 12:59 PM
I'm inclined to think that the lever action 30-30 would work about as well as anything else for this use. As was already stated, it does have adequate power, holds "enough" ammo, is lightweight and quick handling, and pretty common to most areas.

I think the .357 Magnum lever action has it beat, just from the extra magazine capacity. The .30-30 holds 5 rounds. The .357 holds 9 or 10. The .357 is a lesser cartridge than the .30-30, but not *that* much less from a carbine.

ArmedBear
May 27, 2008, 01:07 PM
LOL @ Cosmoline's post.

The problem with the police carrying around carbines is as much about image as anything else. I think the idea of an officer getting out of his patrol car on the side of the highway with a carbine hanging from a tactical sling evokes "Gestapo" or "Cold-War Communist Secret Police."

There are also practical problems. Patrol rifles are sometimes in racks, sometimes in trunks. Either way, the cop is unlikely to have the carbine when he needs it.

Sidearms are very practical weapons. They can be carried in a holster and deployed whenever and wherever the officer needs them.

That said, I do wonder whether there's been too much emphasis on sidearm capacity and extra magazines. A revolver, a speedloader and a small backup revolver, as many cops already carry, would probably serve quite well. It's not reasonable to expect to fight a small-scale war with a Glock, anyway. There's a point where an officer ought to have a carbine, and ammo for that, instead of more rounds for a handgun.

The .357 is a lesser cartridge than the .30-30, but not *that* much less from a carbine.

It might even be a bit "more" at the ranges where it would be used, given various factors. LE snipers don't usually shoot past 100 yards in real "situations".

goon
May 27, 2008, 01:50 PM
I'll agree that if the officer is comfortable with a revolver, it's not a terrible or obsolete choice. It might even be more practical if he's more likely to run into a wounded bear on the highway than he is to confront a masked gunman at the local Piggly Wiggly. But for the most part, why not carry the high capacity handgun? I can't see a situation where having a quick reload of 15 or more rounds would ever be a bad thing.
But that is a different debate...

As for the rifle, the .357 is nothing to scoff at out of a handgun and it's even more impressive out of a rifle. On paper you don't give up much and it does hold more ammo. Penetration may be less than from a handgun because you'd be driving bullets designed to do their work out of a 6" revolver a few hundred FPS faster from your carbine. That could be good for limiting overpenetration dangers and would probably increase lethality - kind of like a bigger, heavier M193 projectile.

But I still don't think the .357 is as close as it's ballistics would indicate, at least not in some respects. The 30-30 would have an edge against body armor or any cover that you found your bad guy hiding behind. It's not a magic laser death ray either - I've seen fairly small trees deflect or stop rounds from the 30-30 and many more powerful rounds. But I've also seen them shoot through things that have stopped .357 rounds dead in their tracks. I'd rather have some chance of penetrating cover than no chance at all.
Another thing is still the cost - 30-30 Marlin lever actions are still available in good used shape for $250. They're not an AR but they also aren't going to cost you $1K.
A .357 Marlin lever action is a sweet little rifle, but I've never seen one for sale used and the new ones are somewhere over $400. For the extra cost, what do you gain? Is it worth it?
A 30-30 would probably also add another 50-100 yards of effective range. You might not need or want that, but if you did it is a better choice.
The 30-30 is also a better choice if you have to deal with the possibility of finishing off any wounded animal larger or meaner than a deer. If I had to go try to put down an injured 300 pound black bear, I'd want the 30-30 over a .357.

The truth is that we get into the debates about what's best, but we're all very ethnocentric about our choices. Here in the NE a rifle that will do 200 yards against man or beast should cover anything that you wouldn't need a SWAT team for.
Maybe in the South the range would be shorter - why not go with a cartridge like the .357 that would likely allow faster follow up shots and reduce the danger of overpenetration?

Like anything else, our personal choices will depend to a large extent on our locations and backgrounds.

George Hill
May 27, 2008, 02:14 PM
CZ 527 Carbine in 6.5 Grendle FTW.

ArmedBear
May 27, 2008, 02:19 PM
for the most part, why not carry the high capacity handgun? I can't see a situation where having a quick reload of 15 or more rounds would ever be a bad thing.
But that is a different debate...

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just that it's probably received too much emphasis, i.e. excessive expectations of what you can really do with a small sidearm, with 5 rounds or 500.

WRT the masked gunman at the PW, that's what I meant when I said that, if there's a small war going on, a good carbine, and effective training with a carbine, would be a much better choice.:)

A handgun is a defensive weapon. When an officer needs to go on the offensive, as in stopping a masked gunman and rescuing hostages, etc., it's not a great choice.

LAK
May 28, 2008, 07:09 AM
Another neat patol rifle would be something like a short barreled Saiga in 7.62x39. With softpoints it is close to a 30-30 already; with specially loaded AP rounds would defeat most body armor that might be encountered - not to mention punch through a lot of automobile etc.

I still think a handy scoped bolt bolt action - perhaps a Steyr Scout - would be best, since when being first on the scene with some school shooter or bank robbery the element of precision might make for a decisive first shot on at least one BG, perhaps more.

Kilted Cossack
June 8, 2008, 11:52 PM
Wow, I read 229 entries, and most of them were passionate debates about the AR15. Oddly enough, the thing that came to mind when I read the original post was John Wooters' little "woodswalking rifle". If I'm remembering rightly, it was a .25-caliber wildcat, done up Mannlicher stock style on a little Sako Vixen action.

Without commenting in any way or the other about the AR15, I think there is a whole class of "just enough" rifles floating around out there. I don't think they qualify as battle rifles, and under modern conditions (and given previous posts in this Zombie Which Walks The Earth thread) I suppose they wouldn't qualify as police rifles either.

Maybe the idea of a "Boy Scout" or a "Girl Scout" rifle would seem, well, too boyish or girlish, but I think it gets the concept across to people familiar with Jeff Cooper.

Sometimes, "ultimate efficiency" isn't the only criterion for determining our picks. Sometimes, particularly in the civilian world, we can pick something because we like it, or for historical reasons. I know, for example, purely from range visits that people react differently to a Kalashnikov than they do to a Marlin.

My personal choice (so far) is a Marlin 1894C in .357 Magnum. It's got a peep sight and the factory front bead, which ought to have been replaced, but oh well.

What I would really love would be a M1 Carbine in something like the 9x23mm (or .38 Super, except for the nagging, niggling semi-rim). I think that would give me the giggles.

No, it wouldn't be AS GOOD A CHOICE as an AR15 platform, but dang it'd be cool.

Nematocyst
September 9, 2008, 05:51 AM
Bumpity bump.

Oh, I'm sorry,
did I wake a sleeping thread? :evil:

What about lever guns for patrol rifles?

Reload on the go through the gate.
Fast action, quick pointing.
Available in the .30's,
including .357 mag.

Out of a carbine,
canned lightning.
Bigga bada boom.

JNewell
September 9, 2008, 09:58 PM
Guarantee there's a dozen or few posts on precisely that point in this ten page thread... ;)

jjohnson
September 10, 2008, 09:06 AM
Well, let's see.... from what I recall, the Spanish Police found the Destroyer to be handy for officers that can't handle a handgun well and for prison guards who really don't need an assault rifle. Sounds a little like the M1 Carbine, huh? :scrutiny:

I rather like my Marlin Camp 9 and Camp 45. They're a little heavier than they'd have to be, but a "patrol rifle" shouldn't be confused with an "assault rifle" so there you go. I'm not sure a patrol rifle would need to be a .308 or something that would be a hazard in an urban environment where an errant bullet could go God knows where. :what:

I agree Remington has blown the niche with wrong minded pricing. I'm surprised a bit that the Russians, with really decent manufacturing facilities and cheaper labor, haven't figured this out and offered something that would fit the bill at about $300 or so, a price that would blow the other contenders out of the picture entirely. Wouldn't it be cool to see them come out with something in 9x39 for us?:D

jpatterson
September 10, 2008, 09:43 AM
Don't know if anyone mentioned this, I am definitely not going to read 10 pages of AR rant, but I would consider a rifled 12 gauge with some kind of optics as a legitimate patrol rifle. Or maybe I just spend too much time on the shotgun section of THR =)

If you enjoyed reading about "The Patrol Rifle Concept" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!